ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Literacy and Mathematics

Caroline Dinenage: What steps he is taking to ensure that all pupils attain basic levels of literacy and mathematics before leaving school.

Paul Uppal: What steps he is taking to ensure that all pupils attain basic levels of literacy and mathematics before leaving school.

Jonathan Lord: What steps he is taking to ensure that all pupils attain basic levels of literacy and mathematics before leaving school.

Michael Gove: Before I answer the questions, may I say on behalf of the House that you, Mr Speaker, would want us to pass on our best wishes to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who has recently suffered an accident from which he is slowly recovering. We all miss him. He was a fantastic constituency MP and great scrutineer of education [Hon. Members: “He still is!”] He still is, and we look forward to him being restored to full health.
	The new national curriculum includes more demanding content in English and mathematics. In line with high-performing south-east Asian countries, mathematics will have more emphasis on arithmetic, fractions and decimals. There will be a new professional development programme for mathematics teachers at key stage 3, which will help them teach fractions more effectively, with robust evaluation of the results. We are, of course, also reforming GCSEs and making changes to nursery education.

Caroline Dinenage: Given the evidence that parents who have lower levels of literacy and numeracy can be motivated to improve themselves in order to support
	their own children’s learning, will the Secretary of State explain what measures are being taken to support family learning programmes?

Michael Gove: It is absolutely right that if parents are given the opportunity to play a part in their child’s education and if they are given additional confidence in their own grasp of literacy and numeracy, the whole family can benefit from it. It is a commitment of myself and the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who has responsibility for skills and adult learning, to make sure that family learning programmes can be supported as effectively as possible.

Paul Uppal: A recent study has found that just under a quarter of residents in Wolverhampton have no formal qualifications, which is double the national average. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend make a commitment to ensure that learners of all ages have the necessary skills and qualifications to enter employment and bridge the skills gap?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure, of course, that we intervene early to ensure that the next generation succeeds at a higher level than ever before, but we also need to ensure that older people who, for whatever reason, failed to benefit from the education on offer during their time, are given the chance to re-engage with the world of education to improve their literacy and numeracy.

Jonathan Lord: Last year, the CBI reported that two thirds of businesses were complaining that too many school leavers were struggling with basic literacy and numeracy and were unable to use a computer properly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable to ask our employers to set up remedial classes in these most core basic skills?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No young person can confidently take their place in the world of work unless they are secure in literacy and numeracy. That means having secured a GCSE equivalent or better.

Lucy Powell: Does the Secretary of State agree that teaching assistants play a vital role in raising standards in numeracy and literacy in many of our schools, especially those facing the most challenging circumstances? Can he therefore assure me that teaching assistants will not be the next target of his ever more regressive education policy?

Michael Gove: The only target for our education policy is to ensure that all children have a chance to succeed. Of course it is the case that teaching assistants and others can play a part, but the single most important person is the teacher. We need to make sure that the changes we have made to attract more talented people into teaching, building on the work done under the last Labour Government, continues.

Alison Seabeck: If the Secretary of State is to ensure that children attain basic levels in mathematics and since he is clearly in need of enough well-trained teachers to do the job, will he
	explain to my constituent, Stephanie, why she is unable to train as a maths teacher either through School Direct or the postgraduate certificate in education? With initial teacher training having moved out of higher education into schools, there is no capacity in Plymouth, so she has the choice of one school, which can take only one student. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Michael Gove: I will be happy to do everything possible to help the hon. Lady’s constituent to be a maths teacher. We should encourage that aspiration among all people, but it is the case that School Direct, the new programme that allows graduates to train in schools, has been hugely popular. It is also the case that a higher proportion of people with great degrees in STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—are choosing to enter teaching.

Andrew Gwynne: With the Secretary of State having given his support in principle to Labour’s concept of a technical baccalaureate, will he also support Labour’s requirement to ensure that, as part of the awarding of the tech bacc qualification, all students will have to study English and maths as a requirement?

Michael Gove: It is certainly the case—I am glad there is consensus on this from both Front-Bench teams—that students who have not secured a GCSE pass at English or maths at the age of 16 must carry on studying until they secure it. Anyone who wants to apply for the technical baccalaureate—a new and explicitly demanding measure of achievement—will have to go beyond that and secure a level 3 qualification, a technical term, in mathematics and produce an extended piece of writing showing that they command the literacy skills necessary for the modern world of work.

David Ruffley: The poet Ted Hughes said of children:
	“When they know by heart fifteen pages of Robert Frost”
	or
	“Swift’s Modest Proposal… They have reefs, for the life of language to build and breed around. A ‘globe of precepts’ and a great sheet anchor in the maelstrom of linguistic turbulence”.
	In the light of those words from the late poet laureate, will my right hon. Friend confirm—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We have heard the words of Hughes, but I want to hear the words of Ruffley.

David Ruffley: Members of the Labour party, the enemies of rigour, want to shout down any defence of standards. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that he will ensure that there is a role for rote learning in the schools of tomorrow?

Michael Gove: It was Mario Cuomo, the governor of New York, who said that we campaign in poetry but we govern in prose. This Government, however, are governing in poetic terms—heroic couplets, in particular. With the help of Andrew Motion, another distinguished former poet laureate, we have organised a competition to ensure that children learn verse by heart and that, for all the days of their lives, the great works of English literature can be there, ready to be recalled and to illuminate every corner of their minds and lives.

Helen Goodman: I am amazed that the Secretary of State thinks he can produce a nation of six-year-olds all of whom can spell Tuesday and know that there are two ways of spelling pear/pair. I think that even Hansard will have some problems with that! Is the Secretary of State not aware that pushing children to do things that they are not ready to do is totally counter-productive? In most European countries, they are not even at school at the age of six. Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that, according to the results of a UNICEF study, the one feeling that British seven-year-olds understood was how it felt to fail?

Michael Gove: I feel sorry for some seven-year-olds because they will have lived through years of Labour government when failure was all around them, but at last there is a Government who have high expectations for every child. I am sorry that the spirit of consensus that has prevailed so far has been shattered by the hon. Lady, because I had assumed that Labour was committed to ensuring that children in their earliest years had an opportunity to enjoy the very best teaching. It seems to me that it is not just in east Durham that there is a poverty of aspiration on the part of the Labour party.

Teachers and School Staff (Training)

Greg Mulholland: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of training for teachers and school staff on (a) autism and (b) fabricated or induced illness by carers.

Edward Timpson: All teachers are teachers of children with special educational needs, including autism. It is for schools themselves to decide what training their staff require to meet their pupils’ needs. We have contracted the Autism Education Trust to provide training for education staff, and it is the responsibility of local safeguarding children boards to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of local training.

Greg Mulholland: Parents seeking a diagnosis of autism can be, and in some cases have been, subjected to unjustified child protection inquiries. Does the Minister agree that we need to look at the guidelines on fabricated and induced illness, and will he meet a family in my constituency who have suffered as a result of that very problem?

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the value to teachers of being aware of the needs of children with autism. That is why we are funding the Autism Education Trust, and why we are continuing to support the national scholarship scheme, which has elements relating to special educational needs, and the training of more than 10,000 special educational needs co-ordinators as qualified teachers. However, my hon. Friend is right to continue to think about how we can improve the guidelines that are made available in relation to both autism and fabricated or induced illness. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has issued such guidelines, but I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss them further and see what more we can do.

David Burrowes: Has the Minister had an opportunity to attend a school that is participating in the Anderson Foundation schools challenge, which is encouraging pupils and teachers to complete 50 tasks to celebrate the 50 years in which the National Autistic Society has been raising awareness of autism?

Edward Timpson: I am aware of that schools challenge. I suspect that my hon. Friend’s question constitutes an invitation to visit Enfield, Southgate on some future date. I should be happy to learn more about the work that is taking place to support the National Autistic Society and many other autism charities for the great work they do, and I look forward to learning more with my hon. Friend’s support.

Education Funding (South Staffordshire)

Gavin Williamson: What assessment he has made of the level of education funding received by children in South Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement.

David Laws: In 2013-14, the Department for Education allocated £4,310 per pupil for pupils in mainstream schools in Staffordshire, plus an additional £900 for each deprived pupil through the pupil premium.

Gavin Williamson: Our schools in South Staffordshire receive on average £695 less than schools in neighbouring Wolverhampton. Many of my constituents think that that is grossly unfair and want it to be rebalanced. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to rebalance it to ensure we get a fair deal for pupils in Staffordshire?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the last Government left us a funding formula for schools that allocates money across the country in an unfair and irrational way. That is why we intend to introduce a national funding formula, and in the meantime we are funding £20 million more to Staffordshire through the pupil premium.

Michael Fabricant: rose—

Robin Walker: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The question covered Staffordshire, but not Worcestershire. We can let in Mr Fabricant.

Michael Fabricant: As you well know, Mr Speaker, Lichfield was, I like to think, the original capital of Staffordshire, and it was certainly the capital of Mercia and was the first place—even before Canterbury—to have an archbishop, but we digress. I am very relieved to hear that the funding formula, which is so unfair, will be addressed, but we heard that long ago from the Labour party when it was in government, so can my right hon. Friend the Minister give some indication of when it will actually happen?

David Laws: I will not comment on the earlier parts of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but what I can tell him is that this issue is at the top of not only my in-tray but that of the Secretary of State.

Underperforming Teachers

Graham Evans: What steps he is taking to remove underperforming teachers from the classroom.

Michael Gove: We have introduced new appraisal and capability arrangements, which should make it easier for governing bodies and head teachers to tackle underperformance. These procedures are shorter and less complex than the previous ones, and make it possible, in some cases, for schools to dismiss incompetent teachers in about a term.

Graham Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What plans does his Department have to assess teachers, to prevent them from reaching that critical stage in the first place? Does he agree that failure in schools is often one of leadership and management, and is not necessarily the fault of the individual teachers?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically acute point. The sharper Ofsted framework, with its greater emphasis on teaching, leadership and, critically, performance management, should ensure that, although these procedures will take less time to execute, they need not be used in many circumstances because heads will have done exactly as he suggests, in that they will have moved quickly to deal with underperformance.

Barry Sheerman: I beg the Secretary of State to stop giving the impression that he believes that all teachers are incompetent. There are some incompetent teachers, and they should be guided and managed properly, but too many people—both parents and teachers—think he is against teachers. Please will he start working with them, have confidence in them and energise them, in which case children and parents will be very happy?

Michael Gove: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to repeat in this House what I say in every speech I give, which is that we are uniquely fortunate to have the best generation of young teachers in our schools, and that standards are higher to a significant extent because of the commitment they make. I am also delighted that so many changes that are happening in education—from the establishment of free schools to the way in which teacher training is changing—are being driven by teachers, who are working with us in a spirit of collaboration.

Julian Brazier: While welcoming my right hon. Friend’s moves to give head teachers more power in this area, may I ask what he is doing, by way of balance, to attract the very brightest and best into the profession?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He is committed to helping ensure that there are more mathematicians of ability teaching in our schools, and as a result of the changes we have made, including working with organisations such as the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry, more students with top degrees in science and mathematics subjects are now entering our schools, thus transforming the way in which those vital subjects are taught.

Gisela Stuart: Heads used to turn to the local education authorities for support in dealing with underperforming teachers. Under the Secretary of State’s new regime, who would he expect academies and free schools to turn to?

Michael Gove: As the hon. Lady knows, the Birmingham authority does not have a particularly good record, whether under Labour or the coalition, in providing an appropriate level of challenge. In Birmingham, it is head teachers who are providing the opportunity—people like Sir Christopher Stone are doing a fantastic job in making sure other schools improve—and the best school in Birmingham, Perry Beeches, has now opened a free school, which is showing the way. If we empower teachers in the spirit in which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) suggests, we can do a lot more to raise standards than we ever did when we empowered bureaucrats.

Child Care and Early Intervention

Paul Blomfield: What plans he has for child care and early intervention provision; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Timpson: There is consensus across the House that early intervention is both effective and necessary, and the Government are determined to build on that, with the Early Intervention Foundation, formally launched on 15 April, playing an important role in gathering information about what works. We already know how powerful high-quality education and child care can be as an early intervention tool, which is why we are extending early learning for two-year-olds from low-income families.

Paul Blomfield: In Education questions on 4 March, I asked the Secretary of State about the cut of 27%, or £6.8 million, to Sheffield’s early intervention grant, forcing the council to make deep cuts in early years provision. In his reply, he cited a grant of £25.2 million, describing it as an increase of 3.9%. I have since confirmed the position with council officers, who said that they could only—I quote—
	“assume the Minister made an error on this. The £25.2 million refers to the current year. The figure of £6.8 million EIG reduction was the figure provided by DCLG. The cut in fact was £7.4 million when the Government confirmed the Council funding for 2013.”
	Will the Secretary of State apologise and accept that he was in error and that my figures were right and, more importantly, apologise to the parents of Sheffield whose child care is being threatened?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State is always delighted to speak to people and professionals in Sheffield to see how the early intervention grant, which is rising from £2.3 billion to £2.5 billion, can be best spent in the Sheffield area. I am sure that is a discussion he will be happy to have.

Paul Maynard: In Blackpool North and Cleveleys, we eagerly anticipate the new statutory duty that will see 15 hours of early learning made available to two-year-olds from low-income
	backgrounds. Can the Minister speculate on the impact that should have on achievement levels for primary pupils in areas such as Blackpool and Cleveleys, which are deprived seaside towns?

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who highlights a key component of our early years intervention programme, which will see a rise from 20% to 40% in the number of two-year-olds from low-income families benefiting from the statutory duty. We anticipate that it will ensure that they get high quality care at a much younger age so that their future outcomes will be much more positive. That can only be a good thing for the people and children of Blackpool and across the country.

Meg Hillier: First we had the pile ’em high, teach ’em cheap approach to child care, increasing ratios for child minders. Today, the children’s Minister was reported talking about chaos in nurseries for two-year-olds. Meanwhile, in my constituency, parents wait two and a half years for a place for their baby. What are the Government doing to increase the supply of child care for working parents?

Edward Timpson: I think what the hon. Lady said towards the end of her question is exactly why we need to push hard to create a high-quality child care system that is both affordable and flexible. Less than a third of nurseries currently employ graduate teachers, yet the importance of qualified staff is clear; it has a direct link to the quality of child care and therefore outcomes for children. The hon. Lady should welcome the moves we are making to increase flexibility and improve quality and affordability, so that more parents can have better child care.

Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend look at the early intervention situation for looked-after children, in particular the 28-day deadline that is being piloted in north Yorkshire? Will he give the House an assurance that where there are special circumstances, the 28-day rule will not be applied?

Edward Timpson: I will happily look at the point my hon. Friend raises. As we have done with the new “Working Together” statutory guidance document, we want to make sure that all children, whether they are in need or whether they require protection, are given the earliest possible help, so that the problems in their lives do not fester longer than they need to, but I am happy to look at what she says.

Sharon Hodgson: I hope that Ministers, especially the Minister responsible for child care, will set an example of the behaviour they clearly want to see from the nation’s toddlers, and that they will sit silently and listen and then answer politely. Professor Cathy Nutbrown is the latest expert commissioned by the Government to slam the Minister for her plans to loosen adult to child ratios, saying that they will
	“shake the foundations of quality provision for young children.”
	I know that the child care Minister has a touch of the Iron Lady about her—she might take that as a compliment—but will she ever be for turning on that?
	Will she or the Government ever listen to the experts they have commissioned and the tens of thousands of professionals and parents who disagree with her?

Edward Timpson: What I do know is that my hon. Friend is used to a maelstrom of linguistic turbulence coming from the Opposition, but I doubt whether that will turn her from her strong and well-evidenced reform programme, which ensures that ratios, which are not mandatory but which are, along with staff salaries, the lowest in Europe, are going to work towards our having higher quality child care which is more flexible and which parents can afford. The hon. Lady should welcome that and I hope she will listen attentively when the Minister with responsibility for child care makes that case in the future.

School Priority Building Programme

Gareth Thomas: What recent assessment he has made of the school priority building programme; and if he will make a statement.

Kelvin Hopkins: What recent assessment he has made of the school priority building programme; and if he will make a statement.

David Laws: We are making good progress in delivering the first schools in the priority school building programme. Unlike previous programmes, we are tackling schools with the greatest needs first—those in the very worst condition and special schools. The first contracts for these schools have been let and building work is to start in the next few weeks.

Gareth Thomas: In July last year Harrow council wrote to the Education Funding Agency seeking to secure some resources, in part from the priority school building programme, for the rebuilding and expansion of Vaughan and Marlborough schools in my constituency. Given that as of Friday, almost 10 months on, Harrow council had not received a reply to the letter, will the Minister agree to meet me and representatives from the schools to discuss how we might move the situation forward for Vaughan and Marlborough schools and secure the resources to facilitate their expansion?

David Laws: I note that Harrow council has welcomed the fact that eight of its schools are within the priority school building programme, but I can only apologise to the hon. Gentleman that the local council has not had a response from the EFA after such a long period. That is clearly not acceptable. I believe, though, that the council has met EFA officials on a couple of occasions. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a letter will be going out this week from the EFA, and I am delighted to meet him if he would like to do so, after he has seen the contents of that letter.

Kelvin Hopkins: The Minister may be aware that Luton has one of the highest proportions of school-age children in the whole country. Indeed, at one time a few years ago my constituency had the highest number of school-age children as a proportion. Will the Government
	continue to give serious consideration to Luton as a priority area, given that several of our schools are still bursting at the seams?

David Laws: Yes, Luton is a priority area. Some of the first batches of the privately financed priority schools will be in the hon. Gentleman’s area and we expect those, after proper approval, to be released this spring. We are currently carrying out a survey of the entire school estate and later this year, when we have that evidence, we will be able to prioritise in a sensible way future allocations of capital.

Neil Carmichael: I thank the Minister and the Department for enabling a much-needed and long awaited investment in one of my schools, Marling school in my constituency. Does he agree that this is an example of a paced and sensible capital investment programme?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Compared with the Building Schools for the Future programme, this is a programme that is on time and on budget and is delivering extra investment in the schools in the country that need it most.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister join me in celebrating the fact that Kettering Science academy and Kettering Buccleuch academy both have a complete set of brand, spanking new buildings and that, together with the dynamic leadership of the heads and sponsoring organisations, this will help transform two of the worst performing schools in Kettering into two of the very best?

David Laws: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend will be aware of the additional capital announced by the Secretary of State at the beginning of March for all areas of the country, not only for new build, but to improve the existing school stock.

Kevin Brennan: Thousands of parents are desperately anxious that their child still has no place at primary school next year, and others will be taught in larger classes further away from home. Will the Minister explain to those worried mums and dads why the Government are building two out of five of their flagship free schools in areas where there are already enough places?

David Laws: I am delighted to explain the priority school building programme. Unlike its predecessor programme, it prioritises those schools in the worst need, and I am proud that it is doing so, in contrast to the previous scheme, Building Schools for the Future, which did not do so. On the issue of primary places, I caution the hon. Gentleman not to lecture this Government when his Government ignored the warnings of the Office for National Statistics and eliminated 200,000 primary school places.

History Curriculum

Andrew Rosindell: What steps he is taking to ensure that all pupils gain a chronological understanding of British history.

David Amess: What steps he is taking to ensure that all pupils gain a chronological understanding of British history.

Michael Gove: We believe that all pupils should be taught about the events that have shaped the history of these islands, and their understanding of that history is best developed when it is taught within a robust chronological framework. That is why we have published proposals for a new curriculum. Consultation on the draft closed on 16 April and we hope to publish a final version in the autumn.

Andrew Rosindell: The country will thank the Secretary of State for at last restoring British history to our schools, but will he also ensure that our pupils are taught about the proud history of our Commonwealth, the former British empire, and also the British territories?

Michael Gove: On the eve of St George’s day, my hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is the case that the new draft national history curriculum explains how Britain has interacted with the rest of the world, from Wolfe’s victory over Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham, which ensured that Canada could remain British, to the influence of Britain on India. It is also the case that the period right up to the 20th century and the process of decolonisation that brought Jinnah, Nehru, Kenyatta and Nkrumah to power is in the national curriculum in detail that did not exist before.

David Amess: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the comments of leading historians Niall Ferguson, David Starkey and Antony Beevor concerning his plans for the history curriculum, who all recognise that unless our children have a real understanding of British history, they cannot possibly know where we have been, where we are now, or where we might be heading in the future?

Michael Gove: I am absolutely delighted that high profile historians, along with academics from Cambridge, such as David Abulafia, Professor Robert Tombs and Professor Jonathan Clark, one of the most distinguished contemporary historians of our time, Professor Jeremy Black at the university of Exeter and others have said that our direction of travel is right, but I want to make sure that there is the maximum possible consensus behind this necessary reform.

David Wright: I support the chronological teaching of British history. Is he sure that the split between primary and secondary is correct in the date lines that he is talking about? Will he ensure that we are not just talking about the dates of kings and queens, but about the history of working people in this country?

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree that we need to make sure that the division between primary and secondary is appropriate for both. As for the history of working people, this is the first draft of the national history curriculum that mentions not only the role of Annie Besant, who helped to lead the match girls’ strike in east London, but also the Tolpuddle Martyrs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, like me, would celebrate an understanding of labour history alongside economic, political and social history.

Bill Esterson: Thirty A-level students from my constituency visited Parliament with their teachers recently, and they told me that they need a broad history curriculum for later on in life. They also told me that if the Secretary of State goes ahead with the kind of proposals that have been mentioned in the press recently, that will not be possible for them and he will see a sharp drop-off in the numbers taking A-level history.

Michael Gove: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am reassured by the enthusiasm that has been shown by parents and students for a deeper immersion in British history. It is sadly the case that an insufficient number of students leave school with a proper knowledge of Britain’s past. I want them to know about the achievements of heroes and heroines so that they can take pride in what these islands have achieved.

Gerald Howarth: Pursuant to that answer, may I invite my right hon. Friend to tell the nation how important it is that our children understand those great heroes of the past? For example, Admiral Sir Thomas Cochrane, a former Member of this House for this notable city of Westminster, not only captured 53 ships of the French flag when he commanded HMS Speedy, but went on to liberate Chile from Spanish rule and Brazil from Portuguese rule. As a result, in both those countries there is not a child who has not heard of Admiral Sir Thomas Cochrane, while there is not a child in this country who has.

Mr Speaker: I had a feeling that the hon. Gentleman might want an Adjournment debate on the subject—and then I realised that he has had one.

Michael Gove: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are a number of British maritime heroes, and indeed heroines, of whom we should know more, from Grace Darling to Thomas Cochrane, and from Nelson to Mountbatten. We should be aware of the role that the Royal Navy, the merchant navy and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution have played in ensuring that people are safe on the high seas and, critically, that nations can enjoy liberty now in the same way we have enjoyed it for generations.

Under-fives Provision

Hugh Bayley: What plans he has for the regulatory framework for under-fives provision.

Elizabeth Truss: We are reforming the regulations for providers for under-fives in order to give greater freedom and flexibility to high-quality providers. New childminder agencies will provide additional support for childminders and more choice for parents. We are reforming the role of local authorities to focus more on disadvantaged children. On Friday, Michael Wilshaw announced that early years inspections will be improved through greater monitoring and that Ofsted will introduce clearer reporting on the qualifications of child care professionals.

Hugh Bayley: Those are laudable but contradictory ends. Last week the owner of a Montessori nursery in York told me that they believe that the dilution of
	staff-child ratios will lead to a two-tier system and result in fewer staff and lower standards for children from low-income households, yet we know that those are the children who need under-five provision most. What will the Government do to ensure that those children do not fall behind even before they start school?

Elizabeth Truss: At present, it is a sad fact that 33% of children arrive at school without the requisite communication and language skills to take part in school education. What Sir Michael Wilshaw has said, as well as Andreas Schleicher of the OECD, is that the most important factor in early education is the qualifications of staff. At the moment, only a third of nurseries have a teacher-led structure. Good providers, such as the Durand academy, provide quality, structured learning from age three, which really benefits children later on. We want to give more high-quality providers that flexibility, but we will do so only where they hire highly qualified staff.

Damian Hinds: In the early years, all the evidence suggests that structured group activities led by qualified graduates tend to lead to better educational outcomes, so may I encourage the Minister to stick to her guns and continue her drive to improve standards in our nurseries?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. When we look at all the evidence from countries such as France, where there are much higher salaries and qualifications in the early years, we see higher quality provision, particularly for the under-threes. Every other country in Europe, including Ireland and Scotland, has higher child-staff ratios and higher staff salaries than we do.

Design and Technology Curriculum

Peter Luff: When he will announce the structure and content of the design and technology curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

Elizabeth Truss: Following the national curriculum consultation period, which closed on 16 April, we are considering the responses received. We have been engaging with leading figures in industry, such as Dick Olver and Sir James Dyson, schools and academia to ensure that we have world-class design and technology education. We are also committed to providing a curriculum that ensures children receive high-quality cookery teaching and understand the importance of a healthy lifestyle.

Peter Luff: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the thoughtful and intelligent way she has engaged with the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Design and Technology Association, and with Dick Olver, Sir James Dyson and others, in considering the new design and technology curriculum. May I encourage her to bring forward a curriculum for the 21st century that inspires young people, particularly girls, to understand the role of science, technology and engineering in solving the real problems of the modern world, environmental, social and economic?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his excellent contribution to the Westminster Hall debate we had on this subject. I would also like to thank him for his views on the maths, science and computing curriculum. We are now working on ensuring that design and technology is more closely integrated with those curricula and that there is an inspiring technological education that crosses many different industry types and gives schools flexibility to teach design and technology in the best way for the next generation.

Tristram Hunt: On the Opposition side of the House we believe in academic excellence, but we also believe in a syllabus that reflects the demands of the 21st century. Does the Minister share my concern about comments from the CBI last week, which damned the new design and technology curriculum as
	“out of step with the needs of a modern economy.”
	It stated that the curriculum
	“lacks academic and technical rigour”
	and
	“risks reinforcing existing prejudices about applied subjects being second-rate.”
	When will we have a proper focus from the Government on a rigorous and relevant curriculum?

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position on the Front Bench. It is sad that we did not get to hear his views on the history curriculum earlier in the debate, but we will no doubt hear them at a later stage.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the future of British manufacturing and engineering. We are working with leading figures in the industry to make sure that we have a world-leading curriculum that is in line with what we have in computing, physics and mathematics. I would also point to the technical baccalaureate that we are introducing, which will, for the first time in this country, provide a rigorous, high-quality technical education that is truly aspirational and will encourage many more young people to study subjects such as engineering.

Duncan Hames: On a recent visit to the Corsham school, I saw the “making room”, which is staffed by a professional artist and is available to all curriculum areas. Ofsted says that it takes activity begun in the classroom and turns it into imaginative work, which extends learning. Does the Minister agree that making things reinforces lessons right across the curriculum?

Elizabeth Truss: I absolutely agree that it is very important that the practical and the academic line up to create a truly rigorous curriculum. We are also looking at the role of practicals in science to make sure that people get proper experience when they study chemistry and physics, as well as in the design and technology curriculum.

School Curriculum

Andrew Stunell: What steps he plans to take to ensure that all children receive a broad and balanced education that includes the creative subjects.

Michael Gove: All publicly funded schools must teach a broad and balanced curriculum, and Ofsted has a duty to inspect this. We have announced that maintained schools will continue to have a statutory requirement to teach music and art and design from the ages of five to 14. Curriculum entitlements are also in place at key stage 4. Funding agreements with academies and free schools also require them to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Bearing in mind how important the creative industries are as far as our exports are concerned—just to be pragmatic about this—will he give some assurance that music in particular will continue to play a part, and how will composition and other musical skills be developed at key stages 1 and 2?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. First, I thank Darren Henley for his report on music education, which we have had a chance to implement and which has helped influence our own approach to the national curriculum in music. We want children to learn to appreciate, but also to create, which, of course, involves learning composition skills. We also want to make sure that that is done in harness with the new music hubs that are being created. “Hubs” is not a pretty word, but they are a beautiful thing, because they are bringing instrumental tuition to many more young people.

Lisa Nandy: Recently the Children’s Commissioner found that girls and boys too often do not know what a good relationship looks like, so, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, why is the Secretary of State refusing to make sex and relationship education compulsory in our schools? Is he aware that this vacuum is currently being filled in some areas by extremist groups, which are targeting vulnerable young girls with racist literature that claims to keep them safe? If he is as horrified by that as I am, is it not time to act?

Michael Gove: I am absolutely horrified by the extremist activity that the hon. Lady alludes to and if she could share that material with me, we will make sure that action is taken.

Andrea Leadsom: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his former Schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), looked into the rating of sex and relationship education in schools, particularly primary schools. At the moment this is an area that is completely unregulated and I know that the Government have been trying to make some moves to get the British Board of Film Classification to look at it. Does the Secretary of State plan to make some progress?

Michael Gove: Yes, we do. My hon. Friend makes an important point. As the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) pointed out, we need to make sure that children have the information they need in order to make confident choices. We also need to take account of the fact that technology is changing rapidly. We all know some of the challenges that young people face—as a parent, I
	know them myself—and it is vital, as my hon. Friend says, to make sure that we do everything we can to keep inappropriate material away from children.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State knows that extended days are very important in getting quality education in the wider curriculum, so will he continue to back strongly Durand academy in its desire to have a boarding element in Stedham? Does he agree that this will be a wonderful opportunity to extend the academic achievement of those young people?

Michael Gove: I owe a debt to the hon. Lady, because it was she who first invited me to visit Durand academy in her constituency. To this day I am grateful, because it is an outstanding school with a wonderful team of teachers. The fact that it is thinking of opening boarding provision for children after the age of 11 is a bright ray of hope. It is a pity that some unfortunate words have been said—[Interruption.] All I can do is quote Cardinal Newman:
	“Lead, kindly Light, amid th’encircling gloom”.
	The same spirit of that great pioneer of education is operating in Greg Martin’s Durand school. I hope that it will come to Sussex as well.

Primary School Places

Catherine McKinnell: What recent assessment he has made of the availability of primary school places; and if he will make a statement.

David Laws: We anticipate that 382,000 new primary places and 35,000 new secondary places will be needed over this Parliament. The latest data show that new places are being created at a good rate and that local authorities are keeping up with demand.

Catherine McKinnell: Record numbers of children will be taught in class sizes of 31 or more from September, following the coalition’s decision to ditch Labour’s class size limits. The Lib Dem spokesperson for children’s services in Newcastle said in The Guardian that
	“schools should be allowed to raise the number of pupils in each class as they saw fit.”
	Are we going to see a return to the bad old days of overcrowded classrooms under this Tory-Lib Dem Government?

David Laws: We have not ditched the limit. We have almost tripled the investment in basic need compared with 2008-09, when the hon. Lady’s party was in power.

Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that between now and 2015, the Government will spend £5 billion on new school places, which is twice as much as was spent by the Labour party during a similar time frame, and that £1 billion of that is earmarked for areas that are under the greatest pressure?

David Laws: I can confirm exactly that. I can confirm also that we would not have had to find that amount of capital had the Labour party not ignored the advice of the Office for National Statistics in 2003-04 about future trends in primary numbers.

Headteachers (Academies)

Andrew Selous: How head teachers of academies can be removed if their schools fail to make the progress that can reasonably be expected.

Michael Gove: The responsibility for the performance of an academy rests with the academy trust. Academy trusts are free to set their own processes for managing the performance, and indeed any dismissal, of head teachers. They are free to adopt the procedures that apply in maintained schools, if they choose. If the Department has concerns about the leadership of an academy, we raise the matter with the academy trust.

Andrew Selous: Successful schools are vital to the well-being of the areas that they serve. Central Bedfordshire has many outstanding head teachers in academies and maintained schools. When an academy head teacher has not made the progress that could reasonably be expected, does the Secretary of State see that there is a role for the local authority in dealing with the issue?

Michael Gove: Local authorities certainly have an important role in championing vulnerable children in particular. If they feel that any school, whether it is a maintained school, an academy or a free school, has a principal who is not doing the right job for their children, they should raise it directly with the Department and we will together take action.

Guy Opperman: Head teachers in Northumberland find it unacceptable that high local government pension scheme rates are set simply because a school decides to become an academy, and yet that is the policy of the county council. Does the Secretary of State agree that that policy is totally wrong and that head teachers who aspire for their schools to be academies should be encouraged and supported?

Michael Gove: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He has fought like a tiger for the schools in his constituency and across Northumberland. I have been working with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make progress.

Topical Questions

Therese Coffey: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: As was mentioned earlier in questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Skills and I today launched the new technical baccalaureate, which will make the recognition of vocational education even more demanding and aspirational. I am
	grateful to Lord Adonis for the work that he has done to shine a light on what is good in vocational and technical education.

Therese Coffey: I welcome the launch of the tech bacc today. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will not return powers from academies to local authorities, as the shadow Secretary of State seemed to recommend last week? Is that not a U-turn on what Tony Blair and the noble Lord Adonis said when they first set up academies?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was very worried when I read the latest issue of The House magazine. In an interview with the shadow Secretary of State that was generally quite nice—he is a nice chap—he nevertheless said that he had “great respect” for Lord Adonis but “differences of emphasis”. He wanted to put “less of an emphasis” on
	“the independent governance that academies have”.
	I am afraid that, once more, that is a retreat from reform. Unfortunately, if the Labour party were to return to power, reform would stop in its tracks.

Stephen Twigg: May I echo the Secretary of State’s earlier comments about the Chair of the Education Committee, and wish him a speedy recovery? I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who is acting in the capacity of Chair.
	Last October, the Leader of the Opposition set out Labour’s plans for a technical baccalaureate. Today, we have the Government’s plans. Our plan included high-quality work experience. Will work experience be integral to the Secretary of State’s technical baccalaureate?

Michael Gove: No, work experience is not integral to the technical baccalaureate. It is provided for by our changes to the funding mechanism for 16, 17 and 18-year-olds to ensure that rather than paying by the number of qualifications, which actually led to a prejudice against work experience, there can be a coherent programme of study for those who want to follow a vocational or technical path.

Stephen Twigg: I am disappointed but not surprised by that answer, because for the past three years the Secretary of State has undermined technical, practical and vocational education by abolishing statutory work experience, downgrading the engineering diploma, removing face-to-face careers advice and narrowing the curriculum so that skills are undermined. I want the tech bacc to succeed, but does he not agree that if that is to happen, he needs to reconsider all the other policies that I have listed?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his points, but I am afraid that in many areas he is quite wrong. Before the Government reformed academic qualifications, we asked Professor Alison Wolf to help reform technical and vocational qualifications. The Labour party said that it endorsed the proposals, but when we have put forward individual policies to implement her proposals, it has opposed them.
	We have not abolished work experience. It was an entirely different process that referred to key stage 4, and it was a recommendation of the Wolf report, which we implemented in full. The Opposition said they backed it, but now they U-turn on it. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s passion for vocational education will be credible only if he does his homework, which sadly he has failed to do so far.

Stephen Mosley: It is disappointing that before Easter, the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT announced plans for strike action in the summer term, which will achieve little except disrupting children’s education and ruining parents’ working arrangements. Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that teachers are aware of the folly of industrial action in the classroom?

Michael Gove: I entirely agree. I meet more and more teachers who are in despair at how the NUT and the NASUWT affect to represent them. One thing worries me more, however—the principal party of opposition has not yet condemned the strikes and criticised those unions. When the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) had a platform at the NASUWT conference, he should have denounced its strike action, but I am afraid there was silence.

Jim Cunningham: The Daycare Trust reports that just 20% of local authorities have enough places for two-year-olds in their area. Why, then, are the Government abolishing section 11 of the Childcare Act 2006, and with it the child care sufficiency report that local authorities have to publish?

Elizabeth Truss: What we are doing is getting rid of unnecessary bureaucracy, but councils will still have responsibility for ensuring a sufficiency of child care in their area. In addition, we are creating childminder agencies, reforming provision and reforming the role of local authorities to ensure that it is easier for high-quality providers to expand, so there will be more places.

Amber Rudd: I am delighted that seven of the eight children’s centres in Hastings are rated good or outstanding, and that despite scaremongering by the Labour party, East Sussex county council has plans to expand the service. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating East Sussex county council on its focus on helping families at an early stage in children’s lives?

Michael Gove: I am certainly absolutely delighted that Conservative-led East Sussex county council is doing such a good job in the early years.

Meg Munn: Last week, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children produced its report on child protection, in which it described child protection services as working in overdrive. It also estimated that for every child subject to a child protection plan or on the child protection register, another eight children have suffered maltreatment. Will the Secretary of State or one of his colleagues tell
	me what he is doing to ensure that children who are not on child protection plans but are clearly in need of services get help and support?

Michael Gove: The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), had the opportunity to speak at the NSPCC conference, and I had an opportunity to read the report, which I found thought-provoking and challenging. In our reform of social work practice, we are attempting to ensure that social workers can spend more time with families in need where there are children who are at risk or face neglect. We will make more announcements shortly about how we are enhancing the way the social work profession works with families that need its support.

Tessa Munt: Brymore school, a state-funded boarding school for 13 to 17-year-olds in Somerset, specialises in rural technology and has its own its own farms, stock, greenhouses, workshops, foundry and forge. Although it delivers exactly what the Secretary of State wants—vocational excellence, great maths and English teaching, and a rapid rise in exam results, having moved from the bottom 9% to the top 3% of schools nationally when looking at value added over the past two years—no land-based subjects will be included in the performance measures from 2015. Will the Secretary of State consider the recognition of agriculture and horticulture in a farm bacc, and meet parents from my patch, and others, to discuss the issue?

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful for that question, because I am a fan of recognising high-quality vocational education, hence the tech bacc announced today. Agricultural and land-based qualifications will, of course, be eligible for inclusion in the tech bacc and for younger age groups. However, they must be of very high quality to ensure that we provide high-quality qualifications for those who take vocational routes. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Kate Green: Nursery providers in my constituency have expressed their approval of support received from the local authority in relation to good practice, providing support and raising standards. What guarantees can Ministers provide that such support will continue under the new regulatory regime?

Elizabeth Truss: I can confirm that Ofsted is currently recruiting more HMIs—Her Majesty’s inspectors—for the early years, and will increase the frequency of inspections of weaker providers. It will also give those providers support for improvement. Existing good quality support provided by local authorities will continue, provided that the providers agree. The issue is that such support is patchy across the country, and not necessarily the same in some local authority areas as in others.

Caroline Dinenage: Given the vital role that vocational education plays in delivering the skilled work force of the future, will the Minister explain how the technical baccalaureate will raise standards of vocational courses and attract more learners?

Matthew Hancock: The tech bacc is intended to recognise high-quality vocational education, including written work and maths. The key thing is that the occupational qualifications included will be developed and signed off by employers, because employers are vital to ensure that when we teach people vocational skills, those skills can be put to good use.

Nicholas Dakin: Changes to AS and A-levels are planned for 2015, as well as changes to GCSEs. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of that conflagration of curriculum changes on young people, schools and colleges?

Michael Gove: It will raise standards.

Annette Brooke: In the interest of transparency and to provide information for schools and local authorities, will the Secretary of State ensure that all reports on the asbestos incident in Cwmcarn high school in Wales, including the final report from the Health and Safety Executive, are made publicly available? I note that the local council has decided to remove asbestos from the school on safety grounds.

David Laws: I will look at this matter on behalf of my right hon. Friend. We are keen to ensure that policy on asbestos is evidence-based, and that there is clarity about the inquiry carried out by the HSE.

Paul Goggins: The average age for leaving home is 24, yet currently only one in 20 foster children is able to stay with their foster carers beyond their 18th birthday. If the Secretary of State is as shocked as I am by that, will he lead and co-ordinate an urgent initiative aimed at ensuring that every foster child, like any child, can leave home when they are ready?

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a keen interest in this area. He will, I hope, be encouraged by the fact that I have written to every director of children’s services to re-emphasise the importance of the exact point he has just made. We have supported the “staying put” pilot, which continues in many local authorities, and I am looking at what more we can do to support care leavers, not only when they leave care, but also after they have left, so that they get all the support that they need and deserve.

Pauline Latham: May I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am going through the process of becoming a board member of the new Free the Children charitable organisation in Britain? The Government’s National Citizen Service positively engages young people during their school holidays. Does my right hon. Friend agree that charitable organisations such as Free the Children, which now exists in Britain, add value to children’s primary and secondary education throughout the year, and are an excellent example of the big society in action?

Michael Gove: Free the Children is a wonderful charity and I look forward to supporting it later this evening.

Ann Coffey: The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children’s matters, is concerned about the high numbers of children placed in children’s homes some distance outside their local areas, the difficulty of supporting those children, and their vulnerability to child sexual exploitation. I am pleased that he is planning to make changes to tackle that problem, but will he update hon. Members on progress?

Edward Timpson: I once again express my gratitude to the hon. Lady for the serious and significant contribution she has made to the work my Department has done to try to tackle the important problem of children who are placed out of area in residential care—the number is almost 50%, which is far too high. That is why we have already made one change, whereby Ofsted must now report to police the location of all children’s homes. We will go further with changes to much of the regulatory framework to improve the “out of sight, out of mind” culture. I am happy to discuss with her in the coming weeks how we implement that, as I have discussed it with her in the past. An announcement will be made very shortly.

Lorely Burt: I have recently participated in a cross-party inquiry into unwanted pregnancy. We found that there were gaping holes in understanding not only of the mechanics of sex, but of how relationships work. In a letter to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), admitted that academies are not required to teach sex education. Given the life-changing consequences of such ignorance, does the Secretary of State agree that sex and relationship education should be compulsory in all schools?

Michael Gove: All academies have the opportunity to depart from the national curriculum, which is entirely appropriate, but I do not think—[Interruption.] Honestly! This is a serious subject, and I am afraid the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not doing it the service it deserves—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate while a question is being answered—[Interruption.] Order. The Secretary of State will respond to the question as he thinks fit, without a running commentary.

Michael Gove: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	One inference of the hon. Lady’s question is that head teachers or principals in academies will be neglectful of the welfare of children, particularly with respect to sex and relationships education. As I have said, this is a uniquely serious matter. Given changes in technology and family formation, it requires the attention of all us if we are to get it right. One thing my Department has done is conduct a survey of best practice. Sometimes, best practice occurs in faith schools and academies and not in maintained schools. Simply prescribing something in the national curriculum does not mean that best
	practice will result. I am afraid that the debate deserves more than the catcalls and superficial sloganising we get from some people.

Diana Johnson: May I therefore ask the Secretary of State directly why he will introduce financial education as part of the compulsory national curriculum and yet denies that drug education, alcohol education and relationship education should have the same status?

Michael Gove: As the hon. Lady acknowledges, the changes to the citizenship curriculum have been widely supported. She draws a distinction between what happens in one national curriculum area and others—as the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) has pointed out, academies are not subject to the national curriculum. If we look at the national curriculum overall, we see that there is an absolute requirement in science to teach sex education, and sex and relationships education is part of the national curriculum expectation for all schools.

Penny Mordaunt: Is the Secretary of State aware of the problems still being caused by the private finance initiative building programme? Miltoncross school in Portsmouth has ambitions to become an academy, but cannot make progress owing to unresolved issues in its PFI contract. Will the Secretary of State meet me regarding that problem and assist in getting it resolved?

Michael Gove: Yes, I will.

Lyn Brown: How does the Government’s rhetoric on supporting catch-up literacy match the ongoing closure of libraries up and down the country? Do his Government ever attempt to join up, or are they just extraordinarily bad at it?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady again shows the devotion to partisanship that has characterised her time in the House. The truth is that some local authorities do a superb job in making library services more relevant and more effective, but others are not doing so effectively—as we are in an election season, it is probably worth pointing out that they are mainly Labour, whether, for example, it is Brent or Newham. If she is serious about
	raising standards in literacy and ensuring that children have the opportunity to enjoy great works of literature, perhaps she will throw her support behind the national curriculum reforms and the academy and free school reforms we are making. I fear that, once again, she will go into the default mode of Opposition Members, which is to make cheap sloganeering points rather than to care about children.

Rob Wilson: Owing to the sudden, serious illness of a head teacher at a school in my constituency, the names of a number of children who were due to sit the level 6 SATs test were not submitted in time. Despite these exceptional circumstances, which the local authority supports, the Standards and Testing Agency will not make an exception. Will the Minister intervene in this rather silly bureaucracy and allow the children, who have worked very hard, to take the test?

Michael Gove: I am aware that this is a widespread issue; a number of colleagues have raised it with me. We will talk to the schools concerned to see what we can do, but it is difficult, when the STA gave appropriate notice, to necessarily make exceptions.

Alex Cunningham: Following the Secretary of State’s visit to Stockton last week, does he expect any schools in the area, attended by children from my constituency, to close as a result of the creation of surplus places if a new free school is opened in the south of the borough?

Michael Gove: It was great to visit Stockton South. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is an outstanding MP and people were saying to me, “If only there were more Conservatives in the north-east.” People were also saying to me that they need a new school because, apart from the free school that is being built, provision in the north of the constituency is not good enough. I am only sorry that Labour-led Stockton council has stood in the way of parents who are working with us, and with the Conservative MP, to improve education. [Interruption.] Once again, if the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) would only haud his whisht and listen to the parents, he would be of far better service to the children of Teesside.

Point of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may or may not be aware that there has been an break in electricity in Portcullis House, which means that there is no means of knowing if a Division is taking place. The Annunciator screens and computers are not working. The only things working are the lights. When we come to a Division, I wonder whether we might ensure that it is possible for everybody across the parliamentary estate to know when there is to be a vote.

Mr Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is no Division expected for some time, but his point is taken on board by the Chair and I thank him for making it.

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Service Pensions Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 29 October 2012 (Public Service Pensions Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order:
	Lords amendments 78 and 79.
	Lords amendment 9.
	Lords amendments 1 to 8, 10 to 77, 80 to 128.
	Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

Public Service Pensions Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Mr Speaker: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 18, 19, 22, 28, 29, 37 to 39, 45, 78, 79, 82, 114, 117, 119 and 127. If the House agrees to the amendments, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Persons in public service: definitions

Sajid Javid: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 78.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendment 79, and Government motion to disagree.

Sajid Javid: We return today to the Public Service Pensions Bill, which will put public service pensions on a fair and sustainable footing for generations to come. There was broad support from all parts of the House for this measure, and I am grateful to all those who have voiced an interest in the Bill for their co-operative approach. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the progress the Bill has made in the other place.
	First, when the Bill left this House, the Opposition were concerned about the wide scope of powers to make retrospective changes and to amend primary legislation. The Government understand that concern. Pensions are an important part of scheme members’ future income in retirement. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place to give members or their representatives a complete veto over any significant adverse retrospective change to their pensions and to restrict the powers to amend primary legislation. Furthermore, any Treasury orders for negative revaluation of scheme benefits will now need to be made by the affirmative Commons procedure.
	Secondly, the Opposition sought further assurances on the governance elements of the legislation, particularly a requirement in the Bill for employee representatives on scheme boards. Again, I am pleased to report that the Government tabled amendments in the other place to require an equal balance of member and employer representatives, along with an explicit requirement for national scheme advisory boards.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend is talking about some welcome changes that the Government have made, but there is another party to this contract on pensions. The taxpayer will foot the bill for the unfunded part of the obligations of public sector pensions. Will he assure me—

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? I do not blame him, in the first instance, because the trouble, the mischief, was started, however
	inadvertently, by the Minister, who is looking at me with an innocent expression belied by the reality of what he was saying in the debate. This is not a generalised debate; these are narrowly defined matters, and we are considering the relevant amendment, to which, to put it kindly, the hon. Gentleman’s remarks were not altogether adjacent.

Sajid Javid: With your guidance, Mr Speaker, which I always take very seriously, I will move directly to Lords amendments 78 and 79.
	The Lords amendments would give the civil servants in the MOD fire and police services a normal pension age of 60 in the new schemes. The Government do not believe that this is the correct way forward.

Bob Russell: Is the Minister seriously stating that an MOD police or fire officer should be treated differently from a police or fire officer not employed by the MOD?

Sajid Javid: As I make progress and explain the Government’s position, I will come to that point.
	The Government do not believe the amendments to be the correct way forward, either for the taxpayer or the forces themselves. I will briefly set out some of the key reasons for our position. Allow me first, however, to reassure both hon. Members and the work forces themselves that the Government understand their concerns. We have listened to the representations and reflected on the discussions in another place, and I want to make it absolutely clear that we recognise the unique position of these work forces and the important role that the defence fire and rescue service and the Ministry of Defence police play.
	My colleague Lord Newby met DFRS and MDP officers to talk through their experiences on the ground and the demands of their roles. There is no doubt that these public services deliver a valuable service to the armed forces and the country more generally. The nature of the work they are called on to deliver is often very difficult and at times can be dangerous. On occasion, some members of these work forces might find themselves putting their lives at risk. No one in the House is suggesting otherwise, so let us not be distracted from this important discussion by cherry-picking anecdotes and citing emotive examples of the work involved, because that is not the issue being discussed today.

Simon Hughes: Like many people, I have met representatives of workers in the MOD scheme, and they have referred me to Lord Hutton’s comments that he was not aware of the anomaly and therefore did not address it in his report, but that he was sympathetic. I have seen both sides of the argument. Our noble friend Lord Newby said that he would reflect on the debate in the Lords. Have there been any further conversations with Lord Hutton? In general, my understanding is that the Government are seeking to implement Lord Hutton’s recommendations, but this issue has clearly slipped through the net.

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend is right to raise Lord Hutton’s contribution to these pension reforms. He has done an excellent job overall, which the Government, including me, have put on record a number of times, although I am happy to do so again today. As my right hon. Friend says, Lord Hutton made clear his views on this issue in the debate in the other place. Since then Lord Newby has engaged with a number of stakeholders. I will provide a further update on that as I progress.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Lord Newby said in the House of Lords debate that these amendments would
	“fundamentally alter the status of these individuals and that should not be carried out lightly.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 571, c. 743.]
	How does the Minister respond to those points and will he say what those alterations would be?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that the general pension reforms in this Bill should not be carried out lightly. As I progress and we have this debate, I hope he will be reassured that the Government have taken this issue seriously and will set out their case carefully.
	The issue at hand is the appropriate treatment of those work forces’ pensions. The amendments would actively reduce the normal pension age for individuals joining them. It would not be a minor reduction, but a reduction of five years from the pension age put in place for those work forces by the Labour Government in 2007. It would also be a reduction of seven years from the pension age that they would otherwise see when the new scheme comes into force in 2015. That approach would run counter to the need to control the risks associated with increased longevity, which all parties agree must be addressed. I believe that all parties in this House support the aim of controlling those risks. The amendments would make those work forces unique in the public sector, with their pension age falling at a time when everyone else’s is rising.
	In response to the issue being highlighted, the Government have taken measured and appropriate action. Rather than making a knee-jerk response to fit with the legislative time scale of the Public Service Pensions Bill, the Ministry of Defence has written to the forces. Its letter states that the MOD is willing to consider how the current pension age of 65 might be maintained for those individuals when the new pension schemes are introduced in 2015. I believe that is a reasonable offer by the Government, and we will of course stand by it. It is our duty as parliamentarians to look at the whole picture. Pensions are only one part of the remuneration and employment package of those work forces.

Bob Russell: The Minister is saying that the retirement age of a current Ministry of Defence police officer would remain at 65. So that I can better understand, what would the retirement age for a constable in the Essex police be?

Sajid Javid: To be clear, what I have said is that the Ministry of Defence is willing to consider keeping the age at 65. It has not yet made that decision, which would require further engagement, although it has set
	out how it intends to engage. As I think my hon. Friend knows, under these proposals the answer to his question about a police officer would be 60, as opposed to 65 for civil servant pension schemes.

Christopher Leslie: When the Minister complains that agreeing to these Lords amendments would create a unique circumstance, is he not really admitting that the unique characteristic of this particular class of MOD firefighter and MOD police officer is that they are the outliers? They are the only ones who will have to work all those extra years, whereas other police officers and firefighters in comparable roles will retire at 60. That is essentially what he is saying.

Sajid Javid: During the Bill’s passage through Parliament, the Opposition spokesman has raised mostly constructive issues and, as we shall see during this debate, the Government have accepted many of them. This is one issue, however, on which he and his party have little credibility. He says that the current retirement age for MOD police and fire service workers is higher than that of their civilian counterparts, but that situation was created by the Government whom he supported, so he really does not have much credibility on the issue.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Sajid Javid: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman again. Perhaps he will now tell me whether the previous Government considered these issues when they changed the retirement age from 60 to 65 for MOD fire service workers and policemen.

Christopher Leslie: I was not part of the Government at that time, but the key point is that, as he knows and as we have heard throughout the debates that have been quoted in interventions today, even Lord Hutton did not spot this anomaly. Lord Hutton says that, if he had known about it, he would of course have corrected it and aligned the MOD firefighters with all the other firefighters. I am prepared to say that the last Government overlooked this issue; it was an error. It was a mistake, and we should be big enough to admit that. Is the Minister now big enough to throw away his Treasury brief, which simply tells him to resist all changes, and to act for himself and do the right thing by treating all firefighters the same?

Sajid Javid: I am very comfortable that the Government are doing the right thing by resisting the amendments. As the debate progresses, I hope that more hon. Members will be persuaded that we have taken the right approach to this complex issue. I shall explain further as the debate progresses.

John McDonnell: Will the Minister explain the nature of the offer? I just want to know what the process will involve, following consultation. Will it require primary legislation, or will it be dealt with through delegated legislation? How will it be implemented? What sort of time scale is he considering?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is asking those questions for all the right reasons. I still have a few more minutes in which to set out the Government’s case, and
	I hope that I shall answer them in the process. If anything remains unclear, however, I hope that he will come back to me. I will be happy to add to the information that I am giving the House.

Richard Fuller: Labour has accepted that it completely forgot about those workers when it was in government. Its spokesman has been noble enough to admit that it did not find the 350 people in the fire service and 3,000 people in the military police. Given that my hon. Friend the Minister now understands that fact, can he tell me why the workers did not bring the issue to the attention of the then Government? Were the unions involved in any negotiations at the time, or has this just become an issue now?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises a good point. I cannot answer on behalf of the previous Government, but I can say that the change was carried out by ministerial order. There was no open, ongoing debate on the matter like the one we are having today. A written ministerial statement was issued by the then Minister for the East Midlands, Gillian Merron, on 26 July 2007, and I can find no record of any Labour MP complaining about the change at that time. If my hon. Friend is making the point that the Opposition’s credibility is severely damaged because of this, he is making it very well.

Bob Russell: It was not connected to the pensions issue, but I raised with Labour Ministers at the time the stupidity of cutting the size of the MOD police, whose numbers in my constituency have been reduced from 33 to one.

Sajid Javid: We all know that my hon. Friend is an assiduous Member of Parliament, and that he reviews all legislation carefully. I thank him for making that point. He will no doubt have looked at these matters closely at the time, and I welcome his looking at the legislation today.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The party political spat is incredibly interesting to observers—and the employees are the people who count most here. Will the Minister set out for me—he has been able to travel some way in his contributions to date—where the terms and conditions of employment set for Ministry of Defence personnel are materially and significantly different from those of ordinary Home Office fire services and police officers across the rest of the UK? If he set that out clearly, it might help me to come over to his side on this issue.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman may already know that MOD fire workers and police are classed as part of the civil service and, as such, are part of the principal civil service pension scheme. That is why the changes I referred to, which were made by the then Government back in 2007, affected those employees. As I plough on through my speech, I hope I will be able to answer some of his concerns.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. It is the material condition of their work that counts. What is significantly different between an officer who dons a hat with an MOD badge putting out a fire and one who does so but dons a hat with his
	regional service cap? I simply do not get it, and I think that many Members do not get it either, while those who do not get it the most are the fire service men.

Sajid Javid: Clearly, there is some difference in the roles they carry out, but I readily accept that the physical attributes required and the difficulty of the job are similar in each case. That is why I said at the outset that there is no point in trying to debate the difficulties, for example, of one job in the civil fire service in comparison with those in the MOD fire service, but significant differences have developed over time between the pay and conditions, including the pensions, of the civil and the MOD work forces. The hon. Gentleman will see, as I have outlined, that the MOD has committed to consider the issue. My main point is that this Bill deals with approximately 12 million employees and their pensions in the public sector, and that this is not the right occasion for looking at individual terms and conditions in each scheme for each particular work force. There is a time and a place for that—but it is not the debate on this Bill. I do not believe that it is the job of Members here or in the other place to look at the individual terms of each scheme. Rather, we should ensure that the Bill we pass has sufficient flexibilities to ensure that if the NPAs—normal pension ages—or other terms and conditions in the pensions for particular work forces need to be changed at some point in the future, that can be accommodated.

Alison Seabeck: Will the Minister tell us how many meetings he has had with Defence Ministers to discuss the implications for the MOD and how many he has held with the MOD police and fire service trade unions?

Sajid Javid: I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not the only Minister in the Treasury working on this issue, as there is a whole team of Ministers, including my noble Friend Lord Newby. Treasury Ministers have had meetings with representatives of the respective work forces and other stakeholders. I would like to plough on—

David Anderson: Will the Minister give way?

Sajid Javid: I promise that I will in a few moments.
	It is our duty as parliamentarians to look at the whole picture of pensions, which are only one part of the remuneration and employment packages for these particular work forces. We should not simplify the issue by making stark comparisons out of context. Simply comparing these forces to their local authority counterparts achieves no useful purpose beyond critical grandstanding. Differences between these forces’ terms of employment are of long standing. If these issues are to be reopened, they should be considered in the round, with proper consultation between employer and employees.
	As well as having different retirement ages from local authority, fire and police personnel, the MOD employees have different contribution rates and levels of pay. Unlike their local authority counterparts, they also have access to benefits such as the civil service compensation scheme. To pluck out their pensions from the wider
	package would be short-sighted, and potentially damaging to the efforts of both employers and employees to get the package right.

David Anderson: I thank the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous.
	We are not just legislating on people’s terms and conditions, and it is important for us not to legislate and get it wrong. What about people’s capability to do the job? Are people over 60 expected to go into a burning building in the same way as they did when they were 26? John Hutton clearly does not think that they should do so if they work for a local authority, and the same should apply in this context. We should think not only about the person who is running into the building, but about the person who is inside waiting for him. That is why the Minister should change his mind.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, and made it well. It is important to consider the capability of each work force, especially in view of increased longevity, and to ensure that the retirement age is appropriate. That is what I expect the MOD to do, and that is what it is doing, but it should do it in the context of the particular scheme for each work force, rather than by becoming involved in the details of each work force that are affected by the broad changes introduced by the Bill.
	We have a responsibility to look rationally at the costs of the proposed changes. The additional costs may appear small in comparison with the savings that the Government are making through their overall programme of pension reforms, but the Government consider them to be both unnecessary and significant. They are unnecessary because those concerned will continue to have access to the civil service pension scheme, which is an excellent scheme that many in the private sector, including those doing the most arduous or specialist work, would envy. They are significant because some early indications suggest that they could be as high as £10 million a year for the lifetime of the schemes. This expenditure would take money away from front-line servicemen and women, and from other important defence priorities.
	Those who support the amendments may believe that the members should pay the cost of the reduced retirement age themselves. That would imply increased employee contributions and a potential average take-home pay cut of over 8%—although it would depend on the exact terms—which might not necessarily be welcomed by members of the forces.
	As politicians, we should not be trying to set the fine detail of public servants' pension schemes on the Floor of the House. Rushing at it might lead to mistakes. As I hope I have made clear, I acknowledge that the issue deserves further consideration allowing time for discussions between employer and employee. We owe it to the DFRS and the MDP to get this right.

Simon Hughes: What the Minister has just said is very helpful, provided that the Treasury too will be helpful if the negotiations between the unions and the MOD produce a different package. I understand the financial point, and I also understand that this is not just about
	retirement ages but about all the other benefits, which may be better than they are under the present arrangement. Can the Minister confirm that, if the MOD picks up the baton, the Treasury will not walk away and say “Nothing to do with us, guv”, but will continue to take an interest in the resolution of this outstanding bit of business?

Sajid Javid: What I can confirm is that the Treasury and the MOD are in exactly the same place. The MOD agrees with the terms that I am presenting today, and, as I have said, has made it clear that it will think about the issue. It has already written about it to members of the forces, as I would expect it to do in its capacity as the employer of these vital groups of workers.
	The Government have not dismissed the claims of the DFRS or the MDP; far from it. The MOD has acknowledged in writing that there is a case for looking at their pension age to check that it is still appropriate.
	Finally, there is a technical reason why the Government cannot accept these amendments as they currently stand. They would—unintentionally, I assume—confer powers on the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly to make schemes for these civil servants. That would give new functions to devolved Administrations, without any proper consultation or consideration of whether that is the appropriate framework for managing the interests of these specialised work forces.
	In summary, this is a complicated and inevitably emotive issue, and one that we have discussed at some length. I am sure I will not have persuaded all Members present today.

David Anderson: The Minister has made two clear points: this issue has not been resolved and needs to be resolved; and there is an issue to do with the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments. Therefore, is not the genuine thing to do to withdraw the Bill today, until those points can be put right?

Sajid Javid: I have to disagree. Of course that is not the right thing to do. This Bill is about 12 million workers in the public sector and their pensions, and about the settlement between those employees, their employers and the taxpayer, and it is vital that we make this reform so we can get the public finances on a sounder footing. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that, but I do not blame him for trying.
	I hope hon. Members at least understand why we are taking this position on these amendments. I have explained why we have to resist the amendments, citing the financial privileges of this House on this occasion. I therefore urge hon. Members to disagree with this group of amendments.

Christopher Leslie: Although the Minister had quite a long preamble, not necessarily on these amendments, all I would say is that, clearly, with life expectancies increasing, it is in general reasonable to ask people to work for longer before retirement. There is no disagreement on that general principle. We need to adjust the public service pension schemes so that they remain sustainable, which is why we support so many of the changes Lord Hutton recommended. However, as hon. Members know, there are certain categories of workers for whom having longer careers is not realistic because of the physical
	demands of their professions. There are some physical tasks that it is not reasonable to expect a 67 or 68-year-old to undertake.
	The Bill acknowledges that in part, by excluding three categories of worker— firefighters, police officers and members of the armed forces—and fixing their normal pension age at 60. That is a rational position, but there are other professions that we believe the Government should keep under review because they also can be exceptionally physically demanding, such as NHS paramedics and care workers. There is clearly a need for some flexibility to accommodate scheme-specific capability reviews for these associated professions, and it is a great shame that the Government have not allowed the latitude for that in the Bill. We debated that in Committee.
	Lords amendments 78 and 79 are aimed at correcting what most people thought to be an oversight: the fact that, for some bizarre reason, Ministry of Defence firefighters and MOD police officers are excluded from the definitions of firefighters and police officers in the Bill. There are about 2,000 MOD police and 1,000 or so MOD fire and rescue scheme workers who essentially carry out the same crucial, but onerous, tasks as police and fire service workers under the auspices of the police authorities and the Home Office.

Bob Russell: In addition to the point the hon. Gentleman has just made, does he agree that, particularly with regard to Faslane and the nuclear submarines and installations there, MOD firefighers and police officers carry out duties that the civilian police and firefighters do not have to do?

Christopher Leslie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because I think that is indeed the case, but my general point is about the physical demands on these individuals. Today we are debating whether their retirement age should be, as the Minister thinks, 67 or above, or whether it should be at 60—the same age as for other firefighters, police officers and members of the armed forces. It is a simple proposition and the House has the power to make a judgment on it today.

Richard Fuller: The hon. Gentleman makes the case on physicality for those three classes of public sector employees, but the crucial issue is that those people put their lives at risk, which other public sector workers do not. Can he advise the House why the issue was not raised, and why those people were missed, in earlier pension scheme reforms?

Christopher Leslie: That is a very pertinent question. We heard from the Minister that 12 million people were affected by the various public service and civil service pension schemes. We heard that even Lord Hutton, in his detailed inquiry, was not aware of the 350 or so affected individuals, because it was a new scheme that started in 2007, and only some MOD firefighters and police will come into the age bracket. Given the complexity of pensions, it is not surprising that some issues were not spotted; apparently even some employee representatives and others were not aware of the anomaly at the time.
	These things happen. Mistakes can be made, but it is really important that when a mistake is pointed out, people assess whether they are big enough to accept
	that it needs to be corrected and justice is done, or whether their pride is such—whether or not this applies to the civil service—that they try to retrofit their arguments to justify a clearly unjustifiable anomaly. That is what the question boils down to.
	The only reason I can see for different treatment for those groups is that one set happens to be employed by the Ministry of Defence and the other is in the public service at large. It is such an evident anomaly that the House of Lords, when made aware of the lacuna, correctly sought to repair the fault in the Bill, but incredibly we heard from the Economic Secretary—I am delighted that he has been joined by the Chief Secretary; perhaps he can be lent on by more enlightened colleagues—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) says he will have a go, but he does not have much time as the question will be put shortly. [Interruption.] Anyway, Ministers are not particularly interested in listening to the debate, so it might be useful if the hon. Gentleman could text the Economic Secretary to suggest that he pays attention.
	In essence, the Economic Secretary said that the Government were too proud to admit that they had got it wrong. They are still defending the indefensible, but the arguments for admitting the error are overwhelming.

Alison Seabeck: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if the Government do not accept some of the changes, some people—albeit a small number—who cannot carry out normal duties will be unable to do the job for which they are being paid? Therefore fewer people will be able to fight fires or to respond in the most physical of circumstances. How does my hon. Friend see the future for those employees?

Christopher Leslie: Quite a few of those employees already retire before the normal retirement age because of issues of physicality—the sheer effort involved in undertaking such physical tasks. It is entirely unreasonable and unfair that there is such a discrepancy between public service workers who carry out the same job. They are all called on to put their lives on the line. The burden of justifying the anomaly now rests with the Government, but other than some rather unconvincing arguments, which the Minister barely touched on, they have failed to discharge their burden and to illustrate why MOD firefighters and police are so different. The Minister took interventions from many colleagues and on a number of occasions he said, “Oh well, I’ll come to it in my speech,” but amazingly he never did.

Simon Hughes: Given that neither the Labour Government nor Lord Hutton spotted the issue, and it has now been raised with this Government, does the hon. Gentleman not think that a reasonable way forward is what the Minister suggested at the end of his speech? We should allow the MOD and the unions to see if they can negotiate a proposal that could be implemented under the broad remit of the Bill. That must be the reasonable, sensible, grown-up way forward.

Christopher Leslie: At this eleventh hour, no, because the issue has been familiar to the Government for many months. The Minister said that there was not even a
	proposal on the table. We are able to judge, as Lord Hutton was able to judge, as suggested by the quotes from the House of Lords debate, the definitions of firefighter, police officer and armed forces, for whom the Bill categorically specifies the normal pension age as 60. The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that some sort of negotiation is needed about whether those individuals are indeed firefighters or police officers of the same class. I disagree with him, if he is naive enough to think that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence do not need to be pushed on the issue. Today is the opportunity to vote on it. I know he will listen to the debate and I hope he will vote in the right way and not try to find some excuse for kicking the issue into the long grass, hoping that people will forget about it yet again. We have the opportunity to deal with it now. Let us have a bit of gumption and deal with it in the way that we can do.

Simon Hughes: May I tell the hon. Gentleman respectfully why I disagree with that? This is not just about age. It is about a whole package of benefits, some of which are much more advantageous to people in the civil service than they would be to someone in a parallel position in local government. I am not in a position, and even those on the Labour Benches who represent unions are not in a position, to do a deal here on their behalf. If Government are committed to a deal being done, it must be right to remit the issue to the employer and the unions to negotiate an outcome.

Christopher Leslie: I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman’s true colours have come through in that way. He is clearly not going to support the move to reduce the retirement age to 60. He should, and I will tell him why. The key question was put by Lord Eatwell in the other place, who asked about the different treatment and whether the Government could justify it. He asked:
	“In what way is it less onerous, when they”—
	that is, the MOD firefighters—
	“have to work on military establishments”—
	as the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said—
	“dealing on occasion with extremely dangerous materials, and occasionally also in war zones? How is their job less onerous?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 568.]
	Unfortunately, my noble Friend did not receive a satisfactory answer to the question, so I repeat it now to the Minister: what reason is there for that different treatment? Do not Ministry of Defence police officers have to stay fit, remain physically alert and intervene in events of great physical danger? Do not Ministry of Defence firefighters have to be ready to run the gauntlet, endure the exertions of search and rescue in extreme circumstances, take intense risks, prove their stamina and make sure that they can rise to the most testing of circumstances? The arguments that justify excluding the police and fire and rescue workers from the link between state pension age and normal pension age apply equally to the MOD police and the MOD firefighters. Just because they are a tiny number of workers should not mean that Ministers can just turn a blind eye and ignore the issue. We cannot allow it to be swept under
	the carpet. There is no reason for the difference, and the Government have no justification for opposing the amendments.

Stephen McPartland: This is a difficult amendment owing to its emotive nature, with a small number of people feeling almost as though they have been victimised. If the Government reject the amendment, can the hon. Gentleman offer those workers some hope that if Labour formed a Government in 2015, it would do as the Lords amendments say?

Christopher Leslie: I am amazed that hon. Members who are in government refuse to take responsibility for the offices that they hold and for the decisions that they have in their grasp. I said that it is important to admit that a mistake has been made for these 350-odd MOD firefighters and police. Why on earth cannot Members on the Government Benches say the same? [Interruption.] If the Minister wishes to correct me, I shall be delighted to hear.

Alan Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: Another Liberal Democrat. Yes.

Alan Reid: It was a legitimate question from the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). Labour is seeking to form the next Government. The next election is only two years away. Surely the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) should answer questions about what his party will do if it is in power?

Christopher Leslie: How much more of an answer can I give than the actions that we will take in the Division Lobby today? Instead of the party political games that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are playing today, it is a responsible thing to do to try to help—[Interruption.] They laugh, but this is not a laughing matter. They expect these firefighters and police officers to work up to the age of 67 or above, and that is not the right thing to do.

Richard Fuller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I have given way enough to Conservative Members and I want to make some progress because it is important to bottom out these specious arguments that the Minister can barely grasp.
	Lord Hutton said that the reasons for giving uniformed forces a lower normal pension age is the
	“simple argument that the nature of their service is unique and should be reflected in the pension arrangements that we make for them. ”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 520.]
	In his report he recommended that the Government set a new normal pension age of 60 across the “uniformed services”. That was the phrase that he used. He did not refer to the type of pension they were in; instead he referred to “uniformed services”, and argued that they deserved to be singled out because of the nature of their work. The spirit of Lord Hutton’s recommendation clearly applies to MOD firefighters and police officers. Lord Hutton said:
	“The nature of the work the uniformed services perform is unique and this needs to be reflected in their Normal Pension Ages. The modernised firefighters scheme has struck a balance between recognising these changes in life expectancy, but also recognising the unique nature of the service provided by scheme members. The Commission’s view is that the Normal Pension Age in this scheme, 60, should be seen as setting a benchmark for the uniformed services as a whole.”
	We agree with Lord Hutton’s reasoning that the amendment was merely intended to correct an oversight that has occurred in drawing up the Bill. He supports the amendment and the reform is based on his idea. He said that
	“if, during the course of my inquiry, I had known about the unique circumstances of the MOD firefighters, I would have referred specifically to them in my report…Sadly, this issue was not drawn to my attention, so it did not make any specific recommendations about the MOD firefighters or the MOD police. If I had known about it, I certainly would have done so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]
	It is important to mention this. We are towards the end of the Bill’s passage and we have not had much opportunity to debate it. This has been brought to my attention during the course of turning the pages on the detail of this pension legislation. The Opposition say the same as Lord Hutton. This is just one of those anomalies that we should be big enough to admit was wrongly overlooked in previous reforms.
	It is true that the last Government raised the normal pension age for the civil service to 65 for post-2007 entrants, and that included Ministry of Defence staff. However, I am now convinced that had we known then about the small group of firefighters and police officers who are technically on the civil service payroll rather than employed by police or fire authorities, we would have taken account of these groups, and an exception could have been carved out. There should be no embarrassment inside the Treasury in admitting that this was an oversight. Regarding this previous change, even the Defence Police Federation said that the
	“Council of Civil Service Unions did not consult the DPF, and we did not have the opportunity to make the above points about the physical demands of being an MDP officer”.
	The issue was not raised or considered when it should have been. Those staff should not be punished because of that particular oversight. If Lord Hutton is able to admit the oversight and if Opposition Members in this Chamber are able to admit the oversight, the Economic Secretary should be big enough now to do the same. Rather than just read out the brief provided to him, he should engage his brain, use his own judgment and discretion, and do the right thing. If he engaged the brain of the Chief Secretary, who is sitting alongside him, that might go some way towards a solution.
	There is the cost to the public purse argument, but as I understand it, only 56 people have joined the Ministry of Defence police, and fewer than 300 have joined the defence fire and rescue service since 2007. So the anomaly could be easily corrected by bringing a small minority of pensioners back into line with the pre-2007 entrants’ normal pension age of 60. We are not talking about a large number of firefighters or police officers here. Sadly, we have had to get to the Floor of the House of Commons to put the pressure on the Government. What the Government have tried to present as a cost is in reality a reduction in the predicted saving from this overall package of changes. They overestimated the
	savings to be made by overlooking the existence of this particular group of fire and police officers and failed to include them in the definition of uniformed services.
	The Minister might put up various arguments, but the question of physical burden cannot be overlooked. A worker for the Ministry of Defence police may be required to wear 11 stone-worth of kit, and a normal shift will involve wearing 5 or 6 stone-worth of equipment for up to 11 hours. Workers in the Ministry of Defence fire service carry out the already difficult and dangerous job of firefighters, but do so in war zones and other extremely hazardous conditions around the world.
	The fact that these workers are labelled civil servants should not blind us to the reality of what their jobs entail. Along with the police and the armed forces, they are the only public service workers who have to undergo regular fitness tests. In fact, the majority retire before 60 because they are unable to meet the high demands their jobs entail. They are also recognised as uniformed forces in the civil service pension scheme, and there is a small reflection of that already. Unlike civilian police forces, there is no option in the MOD police for officers to move to unarmed work if they struggle to cope physically. Even when mainstream police officers are armed, they are not expected routinely to carry guns around beyond the age of 55.
	Another point that has been brought to my attention today—I imagine that this is something none of us is massively familiar with—is that many MOD firefighters have to work alongside colleagues who will qualify for retirement at 60. Royal Air Force firefighters—I think that they are called Trade Group 8—will often be on similar operations with service colleagues, working in the field together. One colleague will retire at 60, whereas another standing next to him will be required to work to 65, 66, 67 or beyond. The same applies for Royal Navy firefighters, who are regarded in their classification as armed forces. This is riddled with anomalies, and it would be very simple for Ministers to overcome them. They really ought not to have allowed this to become such a large point of debate.

Ian Paisley Jnr: It should also be pointed out that many of those personnel also serve in war zones, are deployed overseas and have been decorated for their service, which I think sets them apart, with regard to the changes that the Government are refusing to make.

Christopher Leslie: Absolutely. Sadly, there is also an argument that the Government, by holding out in this way, are letting down those serving in our armed forces. They are giving the impression that they think they can sweep the issue under the carpet and let it ride. There are already concerns that they might be increasing the risk to national security by cutting the number of MOD police officers—from 3,600 to 2,400 by April 2016—and in many ways a feeling of betrayal is starting to accumulate.
	This matter might be an irritant for the Minister, whom we know is looking for a pat on the head from his betters higher up the food chain, but it would be nice if he, rather than trying to deliver a neat and perfect Bill with no loose ends by resisting any issues that annoyingly come up in the course of debate, used his position to take account of the important questions that come up.
	I have encountered a number of such issues in my time at the Opposition Dispatch Box and as a Minister, and it is quite plain that at some point in the next few weeks Ministers will have to put their hands up and admit that they will back down. It would be far neater and quicker, and to the Minister’s credit, if he said so now.
	This matter needs to be resolved. Telling MOD firefighters and police officers to stop rocking the boat and to accept a half-baked assurance that the Government might enter into some negotiations on whether the pension age should be 65 gives them no way to protect their situation beyond the short duration of the Minister’s tenure in office. We need to correct that glaring error in the Bill. I commend Lords amendments 78 and 79 and urge the House not to disagree with them.

Alan Reid: I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted Lords amendments 78 and 79. I support the rest of the Bill, which I think contains good proposals for tackling the issue of people living longer, but I think that that one part is an anomaly and an oversight, as Lord Hutton has admitted. It will leave MOD police and fire personnel in an anomalous position as the only uniformed personnel who will not retire at 60.
	Many of my constituents who work as police and firefighters at Faslane and Coulport will be affected. As has been said, their counterparts in local authority fire services and other police forces will retire at 60, and I believe that they, not other civil servants, are the correct comparison for defence police and firefighters.
	I am pleased that the Government have moved from their starting position of retiring at the state pension age, which will rise to 68 eventually, and have proposed a retirement age of 65, but that still means that 65-year-olds will have to fight fires or tackle terrorists, and I simply do not think that that is sensible.
	Today has been historic, because the Labour party has admitted that it made a mistake when in government. I hope it will make similar admissions in future. The 2007 decision to increase the retirement age to 65 for new recruits was imposed on the unions without any negotiation and it was a mistake.
	The Government have faithfully implemented Lord Hutton’s recommendations, one of which was that those in occupations for which the normal pension age was under 60 should retire at 60. This applies to the other uniformed services: police, fire and the armed forces. However, Lord Hutton has subsequently said that he was not aware of the unique circumstances of defence police and firefighters, and that if he had been he would have recommended that they be treated the same as other uniformed services, with a retirement age of 60. I would have hoped that the Government had taken on board Lord Hutton’s admission that he made a mistake.
	The number of personnel involved is very small—fewer than 5,000 in total out of a civil service work force of about 700,000. Defence police and firefighters do a vital job. It involves putting themselves in dangerous situations and requires a very high level of fitness. Fighting a fire on a vessel at sea requires an extremely high level of fitness. The same is true of police officers who have to wear body armour and carry a heavy weapon.
	Like all other uniformed services, defence firefighters and police have to be ready to go instantly from a state of rest to 100% alertness and very high physical exertion. That puts a heavy strain on the body and, as someone nearing 60 myself, I know we all have to accept that age takes its toll on us. What makes the uniformed services different is the need to go to a 100% level of alertness and effort. Many other manual jobs involve hard work, but it is done at a steady state for several hours, whereas the uniformed services have to go to their 100% physical and mental peak at once, and I think that that top level of fitness decays once we are over 60. A report produced for the Ministry of Defence by Dr P. Griffin, a civilian consultant adviser in occupational medicine, makes clear that a person’s ability to function with peak physical and mental alertness declines once they get over 60. That has to be taken into account.
	Defence police and firefighters have to undertake regular fitness checks and demonstrate a high degree of fitness. I am concerned that if they have to work beyond 60, many of them will fail these tests before they reach retirement age. Having a high proportion of personnel retire early on health grounds is no way to manage vital services such as policing and firefighting. That is why I believe that the cost of reducing the retirement age to 60 will not necessarily be as large as the figure the Minister has been given by his civil servants. I suspect that a large number of personnel will retire on health grounds before they are 65. Although reducing the retirement age will cost the Government money, I do not think that the cost is as great as it may appear.
	The anomaly of defence police and firefighters retiring at state pension age while other police and fire personnel retire at 60 has arisen because defence police and firefighters have been classed as civil servants. The correct comparison is with local authority firefighters and other police services.
	The Government inherited a plethora of public service schemes with different rules and regulations, and have done a very good job of rationalising them. However, if Lords amendments 78 and 79 are not accepted, it will leave the defence police and fire services in the anomalous position of being the only uniformed services that have to work beyond 60.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman is making fine points about the physicality of the job. The Minister said that the terms and conditions of the pensions of MOD firefighters and police are immaterial to their ability to carry out the job. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and disagree with the Minister?

Alan Reid: I agree that the pension rules are immaterial to their ability to carry out the job. That is the point that I am trying to make. The work of the uniformed services is unique because it involves short bursts of high physical effort and mental alertness. That is what makes these jobs different and why I do not believe it makes sense for them to have to carry on beyond 60.
	There should be a simple rule for retirement age. The uniformed services should retire at 60 and other people should retire at the state pension age. If the Lords amendments were accepted, that principle would be implemented. Defence police and firefighters, like other uniformed services, are highly trained and their job puts them in dangerous situations and requires a high degree of fitness.
	I hope that the Government will reflect and agree—if not today, then at some point in the future—that people in these occupations can retire at 60.

David Anderson: Ever since this Government took office there has been an attack on public sector pensions. Throughout the debates on public sector pensions, they have ignored the advice of the members of the schemes, the trade unions and the organisations that represent the members. They have torn up long-held agreements, reduced payouts, increased the length of time that people have to pay in and increased the level of contributions.
	Many of the Government’s arguments have been based on the work of John Hutton. They have said to Labour Members: “Not us, guv! Your man gave us the template and we’re following his work.” Why on earth are they ignoring John Hutton now? Is it because they have an in-built anti-public sector dogma? Do they want to pull down public sector workers whenever they have the chance to get away with it? Is it because—I think this is the main reason, because the Treasury’s fingerprints are all over this—they are driven by the dogma of a failed Chancellor, who wants to save money in any way that he can because his plan A has failed miserably and the economy of this country has not just stagnated, but has stalled and gone backwards?
	John Hutton has said clearly that he made a mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) quoted him. He said that he had missed this point, that he had made an error, and that if he had known about it, he would have addressed it at the time. At the end of his speech, John Hutton said:
	“It is incumbent on us to address that issue and not to use the technical arguments as an excuse for not addressing this fundamental discrepancy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]
	A discrepancy is what this is. It is not a huge issue of principle. It is something that was missed by the people who were advising John Hutton, including the trade unions. It was also missed six or seven years ago when we changed the rules. Back Benchers like me should have raised it with our Government. Opposition Members at that time, including Liberal Democrat Members, should have raised it. However, we did not raise it, the trade unions did not raise it and the civil servants who were giving the advice at the time did not raise it, and it went through.
	It could be put right now. As John Hutton said, it is a fundamental error. If it is not put right now, is it just because the Government are being contradictory, given that they have argued at every other time that we should follow John Hutton’s template, or because they are being cynically hypocritical? We could put it right, and we could do it now.
	It is nonsense to say that the workers in question are somehow civil servants first and police officers or firefighters second. When they run into a building, they do not think, “I’m a civil servant”, they think, “I’m the man who’s going in to sort out a terrorist or to try to rescue somebody from a fire.” I said before that there is no difference between them and a police officer or firefighter working for a local authority, but at times there is, because sometimes they run into buildings where there are things like nuclear weapons, explosives or somebody waiting for them with a shotgun, a machine gun, a hand
	grenade or other explosive device. The physical and mental intensity and the pressure on them is huge, and that should be represented in the Bill.
	The argument that people in different pension schemes cannot be on different terms and conditions is nonsense. For years in the national health service, we allowed mental health nurses to retire at 55, or if they chose to carry on working, their pension was guaranteed at that age, because of the nature of their work. It was about the intensity of going to work every day and grappling with some of the most disturbed people in society. That was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do today.
	We all saw what happened 30 years ago, when Margaret Thatcher’s Government reduced the retirement age for coal miners first to 62 and then to 60. They did so for the right reason—they realised that people in that industry were a special case and deserved to be seen in that way. At the time of the reduction, in 1980, the life expectancy of a miner was 65 years and two days, so they got their pension for two days. Because of the change in the law, they got the chance to get their pension for up to five years longer, and that was the right thing to do. It is clear to me that the change in the Bill is nothing other than an attempt to escape from the need to pay people what they are entitled to.

Frank Roy: Is there not a danger of there being a poorer level of service if emergency workers are older?

David Anderson: I agree entirely, as somebody who is facing his 60th birthday—it comes up like an express train. I was a care worker, and I would hate to think that I would still be caring for people at my age, and in the physical shape that I am in at the moment. I would guess that the people I would be caring for might share that view.
	The Minister says that there will be negotiations and discussions, but if there is to be a serious discussion, a job evaluation scheme needs to be put in place to see who a worker should be compared with. So far, the people in question are being compared with other civil servants. Should somebody carrying backpacks and armour be compared with somebody working in an office? Of course not. They should be compared with people who are out there doing a similar job for a different organisation. That would lead to exactly the conclusion that John Hutton has now come to. That is why we should support the Lords amendments and the Minister should have the good grace to accept them. They would get him off the hook.

Stephen McPartland: The Lords amendments are great, and I would like to be able to accept them, but I have some concerns about them. Members of all parties are concerned about the emotive nature of the Bill’s effects on a small group of people. I would like to put it on record that I am proud of the public sector. Many members of my family work in it, and they show great commitment to the services in which they work on a day-to-day basis. Some of them risk their lives, and others almost risk their lives teaching very small children—I would much rather address the House than a classroom of 30 primary school children.
	The work of Ministry of Defence police and firefighters is incredibly important, and it would be disingenuous of Members to try to identify whether the job of one set of police officers in the Home Office is more dangerous than that of another set in the Ministry of Defence. Some police officers in the Home Office do a great deal of work in difficult circumstances in some of our areas on a Friday and Saturday night, and some have jobs that are predominantly focused around the desk and paperwork. Those jobs are also very important in the attempt to reduce crime and provide police intelligence.
	As I said, this is an emotive issue, and the real problem is the knee-jerk reaction that we are seeing on the Floor of the House to the attempt to resolve it. The shadow Minister said honestly that a mistake was made in 2007 that went through by ministerial order. There was no debate in the Chamber on the retirement age of the forces in question being raised from 60 to 65. I understand, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, that some people of a particular size, weight and age would not be the best at resolving the problems we have in some of our towns and cities.
	For the Ministry of Defence police and fire service—I believe that some MOD fire officers are in the Gallery watching the debate with great interest—my problem is not the cost; £10 million does not sound like much. It is a lot on an individual level, but for a Government with debts of more than £1 trillion—or moving that way—it does not seem a huge amount of money. I am concerned, however, about the emotive and knee-jerk reaction, because as the Minister set out clearly from the Dispatch Box, there are real differences in terms of employment.
	If we accept the amendment and allow the retirement age to be changed from 65 to 60 so that people have the same terms and conditions as those in the Home Office police service and the fire service under some local authorities, my concern is that the Ministry of Defence fire and police service could miss out on some opportunities. Hon. Members, and in particular the shadow Minister, have said a number of times that we do not know enough about the specifics of the terms and conditions—the shadow Minister raised a number of points and mentioned things that have come to his attention only over the past few days.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is fortunate—as are we all—to have been elected by his constituents to make decisions, and what could be simpler than this? Essentially it is about whether all firefighters and police officers, whoever their technical employer, should be able to retire at 60. The hon. Gentleman is flannelling around trying to find reasons not to do that, but in his heart of hearts he thinks they should retire at 60—does he not?

Stephen McPartland: I genuinely believe that people should have the opportunity to make that decision and consult the Government and the trade unions. I do not want a broad-brush approach to this matter. It is not that I do not trust the shadow Minister, but he is trying to pull me into a political trap. I am not interested in politics in that sense; I am interested in representing my constituents and I do not want to accept an amendment that could technically make those fire and police officers
	worse off in the future. I would like to know far more about the details behind the amendment and what accepting it would mean.
	The Minister mentioned a figure of around 8% that could be a reduction in net pay. If we accept such an amendment, and the mistake made by the previous Government in 2007 is reversed, I think we should negotiate with trade unions and fire and police officers so that we fully understand what its impact will be on their take-home salary at the end of each month, and how it will affect decisions in their careers and moving forward. I want everybody to have a fair opportunity, and as I have said, I am proud of the public sector and the work it does. Although the amendment seems fair, I do not feel that I can support it because of the broad-brush approach that could lead to MOD police officers and fire service personnel having a worse set of circumstances in a year or two, just so that party political points can be scored. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support the amendment, but I urge the Minister to provide us with more detail in his winding-up speech about how he will encourage the MOD to sit down with the unions and ensure that the pension age will not rise above 65, and that any decision on the pension age will be about 65 and downwards.

Eilidh Whiteford: I wish to make a few brief points in support of Lords amendments 78 and 79, which seem eminently sensible and seek simply to bring the normal pension age for MOD police and defence fire and rescue personnel in line with arrangements for other fire and police personnel who do broadly similar jobs. As others have pointed out, when the amendments were first debated in the other place, Lord Hutton seems to have acknowledged that the omission of MOD police and firefighters from his original considerations was an oversight. I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks when he said:
	“It is incumbent on us to address that issue and not to use the technical arguments as an excuse for not addressing this fundamental discrepancy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]
	I support the Lords amendments because MOD police and firefighting officers need consistent treatment with other police and firefighters.
	Lord Hutton’s conclusion in recommendation 14 of his report was by no means arbitrary. In recommending a normal pension age of 60 for uniformed services personnel, the Hutton report drew on a wide evidence base. It recognised that the nature of the job places intense physical demands on officers and requires them to maintain levels of health and fitness that are not necessary in other day-to-day jobs. That acknowledgment has underpinned the design of terms and conditions for police and firefighters for many years, and remains as pertinent and relevant as it ever was, even if the age at which those personnel will be eligible for retirement has shifted.
	It is useful to remember that changing demographics and increases in life expectancy have underpinned the process of pension reform. However, although life expectancy has increased significantly in recent decades, the increase in healthy life expectancy has not kept pace. People are living longer, but they are more likely to live with debilitating health conditions or disabilities. I made general observations on that in earlier stages of the Bill,
	but it is particularly relevant to the uniformed services, because it is imperative that officers are physically capable of meeting the demands of the job. Hutton implicitly acknowledged that when he called for the increase in normal pension age for the uniformed services to be kept under regular review.
	We must be realistic about the physical limitations of mere mortals. Hard physical work takes its toll on human bodies. It is clear that people who work in heavier, more demanding jobs suffer more physical strain as they get older. Like the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), I was struck by the briefing ahead of the debate from the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation, which set out in some detail not only the physical demands placed on defence fire and rescue personnel, but the risks to officers, which increase with age—they rise exponentially for officers aged 50 and over. We must be realistic about what we ask people to do. We should not do the sums on paper without thinking of the real cost.
	We need to be careful when we talk about the monetary cost. The Minister relied on the argument that the measure will cost too much, but we need to be careful if we assume that the higher pension age will save us money. All hon. Members know that staff retiring on health grounds can be an expensive business. It is all the more expensive when the reasons for a person leaving their job are linked to their occupation. That is an extremely expensive way to do things. We need to look at both sides of the balance sheet before we jump to the conclusion that treating MOD police and firefighters differently from other police and firefighters will save us money.
	At the end of the day, this comes down to the fact that MOD police and the defence fire and rescue officers are, to all intents and purposes, uniformed service personnel. They need to be fit and strong, and physically and mentally capable of carrying out their duties in an emergency. We need to recognise that and treat them in exactly the same way—as far as possible—as we treat other police and firefighters.
	Another important part of the context is that morale in those services has been put under considerable strain in recent times owing to changes to terms and conditions and proposed reductions to services. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who intervened earlier, I have MOD police in my constituency—they look after the St Fergus gas terminal. I am therefore very much aware of the great uncertainty that has overshadowed the service because of MOD reviews. I am also aware that a proposed voluntary early release scheme, for which, I believe, 600 officers applied, has been subject to a rethink. I am glad that the MOD has recognised the folly of rushing in with ill-thought-through cuts, but officers who had applied for early release have been left in a kind of limbo. The service needs to ensure that younger officers come up through the ranks, but the uncertainties of the past few years have undermined morale and the good will of officers, who take substantial risks in their day-to-day working lives, and who we expect to be on the front line during any crisis.
	That is why I do not have confidence in the solution set out by the Minister. I know that some of his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition have accepted it—if I had not seen officers being mucked about by the MOD’s prevarication over the early release scheme,
	I would have more confidence in the Government’s proposals. However, having witnessed that, and seeing that the issue is still unresolved, I really do not have that confidence. In that context, I would be keen to see the amendments go through as they are, and I urge Liberal Democrats to come through the Lobby and make their voices heard on behalf of their constituents.

Alan Reid: I want to make it clear on the record that I believe the Government when they say that they want to keep the retirement age at 65, instead of increasing it progressively to 68 when the state pension age goes up. The Government have made that offer. My argument was that the retirement age should be 60, because of the decline in their physical ability to perform at peak fitness after that age.

Eilidh Whiteford: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Like me, he has constituents who have applied for the early release scheme and been mucked about. That is why we should settle the matter today on the Floor of the House, instead of allowing it to be sent off into the long grass where we can prevaricate some more before failing to reach the conclusion that people need to be treated with consistency.
	The question of consistency underpins everything. There is recognition that other police and firefighters need a lower normal pension age than those in less physically demanding roles. People who do the same jobs, but for the MOD, need to be recognised in exactly the same way. I urge the Government to observe the spirit of the Hutton report, accept that this was an oversight, and do the right thing by our MOD police and firefighters by accepting the Lords amendments. I hope, even at this very late stage, that the Minister will capitulate.

Bob Russell: It is regrettable that no Defence Minister is here, because we could be putting the cart before the horse. What is crucial is the fitness for the purpose for which our MOD firefighters and police are employed. That should be the first, driving principle, and then we can move on to retirement ages and pensions. Does the country really want its nuclear bases to be defended by people of my age? Is it really safe for someone of my age to put out a fire on a nuclear submarine? The clear answer is no. It is therefore regrettable that the MOD is not represented in this important debate. This debate must be important, because I have missed the welcome home parade of 4th Mechanised Brigade. As a member of the Defence Committee, I always wish to welcome home our troops. I hope the fact that I am here will be read as an indication of how seriously I take this debate.
	I draw the attention of the House to what Lord Hutton of Furness said in the other place:
	“I do not believe that there is any substantive technical reason why we cannot look again at the role of the MoD firefighters and the MoD police.”
	He went on to say:
	“Surely there has to be a way of doing the right thing for these people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 570.]
	I came to this debate fully intending to vote in support of the Lords amendments, but their unintended consequences could well lead to our MOD firefighters and police being financially worse off, albeit while retiring at a younger age. I will therefore take the Minister at his word—he is a Minister whom I trust—and give the matter further consideration in the spirit and intention of what Lord Hutton has said.

Gemma Doyle: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks MOD police and firefighters could be worse off if their normal retirement age is set at 60? That has been repeated a number of times, but I do not believe that it has been explained.

Bob Russell: Yes. As I understand it, the retirement age is one anomaly, but the contributions towards pension funds are another anomaly. To ask the House to have its cake and eat it might be asking for too much.

Gemma Doyle: I do not believe that that is actually in the Bill. I do not believe that pension contributions will be affected, if the House votes to allow MOD police officers and firefighters to retire at 60. As we know—the hon. Gentleman and I represent some of these people—they want to be able to retire at 60.

Bob Russell: The hon. Lady used the words, “I believe”, and although she may well be right, it is because of the uncertainty that I welcome the promise from the Minister, whom I must take at his word, to give this matter further consideration. It is worth taking that on board.

Gemma Doyle: indicated dissent.

Bob Russell: Well, the hon. Lady and I must beg to differ. I do not want her to think that her support for MOD firefighters and police officers is greater than mine. I was arguing in support of the MOD police when the previous Labour Government were cutting their numbers—so I can do without those sorts of comparisons.
	I ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance on the concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I particularly welcome the comments from the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who raised questions that have not yet been fully answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) also raised concerns.

Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on this matter. I have had a chance to check the answer to the question from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). If the amendment were accepted, it would immediately transfer the people in question out of the civil service definition. They would get the benefit of an earlier retirement age, but they would also get the disbenefit of other comparative advantages. That is why we need a negotiated conclusion, not one-line changes to the Bill.

Bob Russell: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. When I referred to the unintended consequences, I was not expecting a detailed exposé of what one of them would be.
	With some reluctance, I am taking the Minister at his word about the unintended consequences, and I urge the House to do the same. I take on board everything that Lord Hutton has said subsequently about his not being aware of the issue. Trusting the Minister, I think that our MOD firefighters and police officers could conceivably end up better off. I repeat my basic point, however, because the MOD needs to move quickly to reassure the nation about our military depots and nuclear installations. I have seen Faslane at first hand, and we do not want a Dad’s Army—people my age—defending our nuclear installations or trying to put out fires in military establishments.

John McDonnell: I welcome the new enthusiasm on both sides of the House for negotiating with trade unions. We have seen 18 months of industrial action followed by the imposition of a pensions settlement on a large number of civil service workers. I therefore welcome this enthusiasm for negotiating the issue out.
	The Government’s policy on pensions was twofold: they wanted to bring together a consistent retirement age across the services, while, as part of public service reform, ensuring a process of modernisation, with retirement schemes reflecting the requirements of service delivery. From what we have received today, I think we are reintroducing an element of chaos into the retirement age. Far from ensuring consistency, we seem to be building anomaly upon anomaly. Far from pragmatically reflecting the reality of delivering a service, we are about to undermine another service.
	On delivery, we should learn the lessons of 2007. I did not support the increase in the retirement age for firefighters in 2007, just as I have not supported this legislation. The lesson that the Fire Brigades Union taught us was that once we increase the retirement age in such a physically demanding job, apart from having a physical effect on those workers and their lives—and on their families, too—we do not save money, because people take ill-health retirement, as others have said. At the end of the day, this is not part of a modernisation process; it is a step backwards.
	The other issue raised was consistency—this argument that there will be consistency across the uniformed services. However, that was never the case anyway, because we argued for the Prison Service and uniformed services in the health service to be included, but they were excluded. The issue of consistency is drawn even more sharply by the exclusion of the group of staff we are discussing in this debate, who are clearly part of a uniformed service. They are being discriminated against purely on the basis of who employs them. Firefighters who are employed by local government via a fire authority are within the scheme at age 60, whereas those employed by these other bodies are not. That is not just policy making on the hoof; to be frank, it is incompetent policy making.
	As for the disbenefits, when a general agreement is taken into legislation in this way there is always the facility for the employer and others to adjust contribution rates, albeit as part of a negotiated settlement, but we usually legislate and then iron out the detail of
	the contribution rates, with the matter usually being resolved through an adjustment of the employer’s contribution.
	Let me turn finally to the process. The Minister helpfully tried to respond, but there was insufficient detail. If there is to be negotiation on this issue, we need at least a commitment about the time scale. There has to be a limited time scale, over the next three months, in which we can resolve these anomalies and give this group of workers some security, because the current insecurity is causing concern.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is spot on. We need that time frame, but do we not also need a commitment from the Minister today that the age of 60—this is the equality issue—is, at the very least, a possibility that is on the table? So far we have not had that.

John McDonnell: Today we have at least set out the parameters of what the negotiations will be. The age of 60 has to be No. 1 on the agenda, followed by ironing out other anomalies. The second issue is the point I raised in an intervention on the Minister. We have to have a clear definition of the legislative process by which the negotiated settlement will be speedily agreed through the House. Will it be tacked on to other primary legislation or might there be a speedy regulation change that enables us to implement the process?

Simon Hughes: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done. I share his view that it would be helpful if the Minister indicated in the winding-up speech that there will be a fixed timetable for concluding the process and that the age change from 65 to 60 would be on the agenda. If he can do that, I think that realistically, given that we are at the beginning of this financial year, that would be acceptable. I have not cleared that with the unions, but we need something that gives some parameters and the Minister would carry us with him if he set them.

John McDonnell: To go back a bit, I would also like some clarity about the legislative process. The time scale for negotiations can be set and the agenda for those negotiations clarified; my anxiety is that if we do not have a commitment on the time scale for legislation, the issue could be kicked into the long grass or even further. That would be seen by the workers as an act of bad faith unless a clear timetable was also given for the legislative process.

Simon Hughes: I have one quick thought—I am trying to be helpful. In every year there is inevitably a Finance Bill. This is a Treasury matter and could therefore be covered in the new Session by the Finance Bill.

John McDonnell: That is all I am asking for: clarity of process and time scale. It would be extremely helpful, as an act of good will and good faith, for the Minister to take back a reference to this matter in the Queen’s Speech. That would indicate to those involved that the Government attach a priority to ironing out what has been accepted as an anomaly. It is one that might affect only a relatively small number, but it does so critically and in a critical service, as others have said.

Richard Fuller: It is customary to say what a pleasure it is to follow the previous speaker, and in this case it is a great pleasure to have listened to the contribution from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He asked precise questions and reinforced some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) in order to move forward what the Minister had said earlier. Thanks to those two contributions, we are beginning to get to the real meat of the issue of how we can ensure that this group of overlooked public sector workers can find an acceptable and fair outcome to their pension situation after all these years.
	Within the overall ambit of the Bill, I speak as one who sits outside the cosy compromise between Government and Opposition Members on the principles set out by Lord Hutton. Our decisions on pensions must stand the test of time. People make decisions about contributions to their pensions based on the expectation that those contributions will have an effect 20 or 30 years later when they retire. My concern about the compromise relates to affordability, given that we are asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.
	I want to draw the House’s attention to the specific costs involved in the measure. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the amount involved is £10 million per annum. I am a big admirer of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), but he said earlier that £10 million a year was not really a considerable amount of money. I believe, however, that it is indeed a considerable amount of money to be paid year on year. Under the previous Government, it was that attitude that £10 million here and £10 million there did not really matter that led to the grotesque financial situation that we found ourselves in in 2010.

Stephen McPartland: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Fuller: I will give way to my spendthrift Friend.

Stephen McPartland: The point I was making was that, although £10 million is a lot of money at a personal level, I do not feel that it should be a reason to allow such discrepancies to continue. The House should be trying to create parity between all those who do that difficult job on a daily basis, and to focus on the overall package of measures rather than just on the pensions question. That £10 million could provide savings, as the Minister suggested earlier.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend has characteristically drawn us to the centre ground. When we consider our public sector workers, we should look not at their pensions in isolation but at the broader question of the compensation terms and conditions under which they are employed.
	As I have said, we are talking about a relatively small number of workers. Those members of our public services have a physically demanding job, but it is also a requirement of their public service employment that they are at times asked to put their lives at risk to maintain public safety. It behoves us to take a special approach to such workers and to the way in which their pension conditions are treated.

John Hemming: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about the physical efforts of the uniformed services, and that the £10 million will not derail the whole package? We need to be aware that certain jobs are particularly physically demanding, and that people cannot keep on doing them until they reach the relatively young age of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), for example?

Richard Fuller: I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I may have to do so. Many jobs in both the public and private sector are physically demanding, but I would not advocate a different retirement age purely on the basis of physicality. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman tried to make a specific point about physicality, but I believe that that is the wrong course to take. I believe that this group of workers—the MOD police force and firefighters—have an additional requirement placed on them by us, the taxpayers, whereby we ask them as part of their responsibilities potentially to put their lives at risk, or at least to put the safety and interests of the public ahead of themselves. If I may say so, that is a far more appropriate basis for our looking at this particular issue. People may wish to make the case for physicality, but there is a special case here that goes above and beyond that. That is, I think, the reason why the Minister has taken such great interest in trying to find a solution on this issue.
	I welcomed hearing the Labour party admit that it completely forgot about these people when it was in office and raised the pension age. Hearing that was welcome, because all Governments make mistakes and people do get missed out in the transitions. Let me explain what I would like to hear from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) today. There is a chance in future—I do not think it will be in 2015, but it is likely at some time for these public sector workers in the MOD, the fire service or the police force—of there being a Labour Government.

Christopher Leslie: Hear, hear.

Richard Fuller: I am pleased that the shadow spokesman raises that possibility. Is he therefore prepared to put his money where his mouth is—today? He has made a commitment, but is it just words? If he is so confident of being in office, will he pledge today to ensure that these MOD workers have the same conditions as he advocates? I give way if he wishes to make that pledge.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that we are not making this decision in 2015; we are making it here and now in 2013. We have to confront the issue. He is trying to find all sorts of reasons not to disagree with the Whips who are leaning on him, saying “Please do not vote with your conscience on this particular issue.” We have accepted that the issue should have been addressed in 2007. Now that there is no excuse for lacking awareness of it—it is being debated now—is he really going to vote today, in his full awareness of these facts, to say that this particular group of firefighters should not be entitled to retire at 60 when all the other firefighters are? Is that really what he is going to do?

Richard Fuller: The hon. Member for Nottingham East is a fine fellow, but I have to tell him—[Interruption.] “Fine fellow” will be the beginning and end of my comments to him. [Interruption.] I will come to the point, as this strikes at the credibility of the political class in this country. What the Labour party spokesman is trying to do is to use words to set up people’s expectations without taking the responsibility to fund them. That is why the political class is seen through by the public, who are fed up with politicians making up arguments that exist in the world of fancy but not in the hard reality in which people live. If I may say so to the fine fellow opposite, if he wants to be honest to the British people and, more importantly, to the people whom this amendment is designed to represent, it is his responsibility to pledge today to put taxpayers’ money where his mouth is if he is ever in government. I note that that is a commitment that he has very specifically missed out today.

John Hemming: The Opposition seem to be saying that the decision should be made today without negotiation, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that negotiation is the best way forward, and that to have such negotiation, we need to support the Government’s proposal for negotiation?

Richard Fuller: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s second intervention, because it enables me to agree with him this time. As I said at the start of my speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made the same point in pressing the Minister for more specificity. I, too, wish to ask him for clarification on that point.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is time-limited? If he wishes to hear the Minister’s clarification, he must leave time for it before the debate ends at 5.37 pm.

Richard Fuller: I shall attempt to make my points speedily, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made two requests. He asked when the negotiations that may be conducted between the Ministry of Defence and the workers and their representatives would have to be concluded, and suggested a three-month time frame. I support that recommendation. He also asked for an indication from the Minister, today if possible but otherwise in a subsequent letter to Members, of what the legislative process would be for the reaching of a resolution. I think that both those suggestions are very worth while.
	Will the Minister confirm that the assessment by MOD and the workers’ representatives will not specify a particular retirement age, and that the decision will be based on an assessment of the potential ability of members of those work forces to do their jobs effectively? Will he also confirm—I think he said this earlier, but confirmation would be helpful—that the scheme will be flexible enough to allow us to make the changes without any limit, but that it will be up to those in the scheme to make the recommendations? I hope that he will be able to make those two commitments today.
	It is important for the Government to be able to maintain a dialogue about the retirement age of our firefighters, both in the MOD and outside it. We are embarking on unknown territory, and I think that a Government who listen to these workers will be seen to be truly putting their money and their heart where their mouth and commitments are.

Sajid Javid: I thank all who have spoken during the past hour. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who could not speak in the debate, but who has an interest in the issue and has made representations to me on behalf of his constituents. I hope that I shall be able to respond to the points that have been made in the time that is available to me.
	Both my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) made a number of points. As they will understand, I could not agree with everything that they said, but they both made the sensible point that the Treasury and the MOD should take account of those who retire early on health grounds when considering the potential cost implications of the changes that we are discussing. I agree that we must bear in mind all the impacts on costs that the amendments might have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) also raised a number of issues, including the important issue of the Opposition’s credibility in this regard. Some MOD firefighters and police officers who are listening to the debate will already have a retirement age of 65 rather than 60 because of the changes made by the last Government in 2007. When the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) speaks about such matters, his own credibility becomes somewhat shallow.
	I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). I again did not agree with much of what he said, but I know he believes passionately in what he says, and I respect fully what he had to say. He is a great advocate for his constituents, but he, too, did not address the issue of the change that was made in 2007, and nor did his party colleague, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). For the purposes of this debate, it would be useful to know whether the hon. Members who have spoken up today also did so when the retirement age was changed in 2007.

David Anderson: rose—

John McDonnell: rose—

Sajid Javid: I give way first to the hon. Member for Blaydon.

David Anderson: If the Minister checks the record tomorrow, he will see that I specifically said I made a mistake, and I also made a point about the Liberal Democrats not raising this issue at that time. The Minister is therefore wrong if he is saying I did not deal with the issue.

Sajid Javid: I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

John McDonnell: I did not make a mistake: I opposed the lot.

Sajid Javid: That is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman, as he opposes a lot in this Chamber, and perhaps did so even when his party was in government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) raised a number of points. I agree with his comments about fitness for the purpose. He asked about whether MOD firefighters and police officers are fit for the purpose and that is key, because it is essential that we set retirement ages that are appropriate for the jobs in question, as I said in my opening speech.
	My hon. Friend also touched on the related issue of pension contributions. If we just accept these amendments, there will be consequences from the changes. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), speaking for the Opposition, intervened on my hon. Friend on that matter, but what she said was wrong, because there would be consequences. We would have to think about who would pay for these changes, and if there were a change in the retirement age we clearly could not have a situation where, for instance, the civilian firefighters and the MOD firefighters had the same retirement age but paid different pension contributions. We would have to consider such issues. The hon. Lady knows that such issues exist, and it does not serve this House well to pretend they do not.

Christopher Leslie: The Members who have engaged in this debate were asking the Minister to see whether there would be any movement, and one issue raised was the time frame for any potential negotiation on movement. I happen to think we should hold out for 60—that that should be the decision today—but I do want to ask the Minister: is he sure there is the potential for going to 60 for MOD firefighters and civilian firefighters without primary legislation? I am worried that, if we let this matter pass today, we might not be able to deal with it through regulations and secondary legislation, and that we will instead require primary legislation if we are to have the potential to get parity. Can the Minister confirm that we would need primary legislation for that?

Sajid Javid: I was going to come to that issue, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, as well as the Opposition spokesperson, raised it. I will say a bit about the MOD process, but first let me repeat an important point: this is a broad-ranging Bill to deal with all public sector pensions, affecting approximately 12 million individuals, by addressing the issue of increasing life expectancy and seeking to find the necessary savings in a fair way from employees, employers and the taxpayer. It is framework legislation: it sets the general framework for individual schemes, but that is all it does. It is for the individual employer organisations and the employees to negotiate the terms of each scheme.
	We deliberately set up the legislation to provide significant flexibility, so that if the MOD, and therefore the Government, decide at a later date that the retirement age needs to change, it would not require further legislation. The MOD can make the decision in discussion with stakeholders and others. The legislation will give not just the MOD but all public sector employee organisations flexibility to deal with the particular circumstances of their schemes.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington both asked about the time scale. I hope that tomorrow in the other place my noble Friend Lord Newby can give a bit more information about the time scale, because I have heard the desire of this House for that. The most important thing is that the issue is considered in the round, with the terms and conditions that are being negotiated for other schemes in the public domain. I expect the MOD to hold discussions within the same time frame.
	The MOD has already fired the starting gun for those discussions, and has written to the members of the forces the legislation might affect. I am glad that process has started.

John McDonnell: When the legislation leaves this House and goes back to the other place, could the Minister write to us explicitly about the generality of the Bill—about its being a framework Bill? It seems curious that a framework Bill lists a number of categories of worker whose retirement age will be at 60. That is why many people felt they needed to be included in that list if they were to be protected. It seems odd that the Minister is now saying, “Don’t worry because it is a general framework Bill.”

Sajid Javid: The Government have been very clear that one of the purposes of the Bill is to deal with increasing life expectancy and longevity. That is why retirement ages are increasing for almost all public sector workers, and there is a link to the state pension age. The Government must address the issue; it was something the previous Government ducked, but it is vital for making the public finances more secure. That situation has not changed. What I am outlining today, with regard to the issue relating to MOD firefighters and police officers, is that there is flexibility within the MOD scheme for it to come up with a different arrangement. The MOD has agreed to look into that. It has not made any decisions, but I am sure that it will look very carefully indeed at the issue.

Christopher Leslie: The Minister says that the Bill is flexible. May I direct him to page 23, schedule 1, where there is a definition of fire and rescue workers? It states:
	“In this Act, ‘fire and rescue workers’ means persons employed by…a fire and rescue authority in England or Wales…the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, or…the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board.”
	Currently, that reference does not include Ministry of Defence firefighters. Can the Minister tell us that it does not require primary legislation to amend schedule 1 in that way?

Sajid Javid: I thought I made myself clear but I will say it again: it would not require primary legislation if the MOD decided it was appropriate and right to make any changes to the retirement age.

Simon Hughes: The Minister is being very helpful. In answer to an earlier question, he alluded to the timetable that has started. Would it be reasonable to assume that the negotiations are intended to be concluded by the MOD during this financial year at the latest?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend asks a good question. I have heard the desire of the House for a timetable and I respect that. I will ask my noble Friend Lord Newby to speak further on that point tomorrow.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asked me to write to him on a specific issue, and I will. I heard that point.
	This has been a passionate debate. The Government have been very clear that we value tremendously the work of MOD firefighters and police officers. We have heard clearly the issues that have been raised today and how passionately they have been argued. I hope that I have managed to persuade some hon. Members—no doubt I have not managed to persuade all of them—that the Government take the issue seriously. The MOD will be looking into the issue and has already set the ball rolling. I hope that that will be a speedy process, and I urge the House to vote against the amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 78.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 278, Noes 217.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 78 disagreed to.
	More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 79.—(Sajid Javid.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 282, Noes 218.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 79 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments 1 to 77 and 80 to 128 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 18, 19, 22, 28, 29, 37 to 39, 45, 82, 114, 117, 119 and 127.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 78 and 79;
	That Jonathan Ashworth, Greg Hands, Sajid Javid, Chris Leslie and Stephen Williams be members of the Committee;
	That Sajid Javid be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.— (Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 14 January (Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Lords message

Maria Miller: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 17A.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendment 17B.
	Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 131A.

Maria Miller: Hon. Members will recall that on Report on 18 March the House agreed to a number of new clauses which, together with an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, implement the legislative parts of the cross-party agreement on Leveson. They will also remember that the published clauses, along with the royal charter, enabled the Government to bring forward a cross-party agreement based on a system of incentivisation rather than compulsion. There will be a tough system of self-regulation that avoids full statutory regulation—the Rubicon that the Prime Minister and I refuse to cross. The clauses will put in place the incentive-based, self-regulatory system for the press envisaged by Lord Justice Leveson.
	The other place agreed, by and large, with the Commons amendments, but there is one substantive issue that we need to resolve: namely, the position within the new framework of small-scale bloggers. Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 131A address that issue.
	It might assist the House if I put the amendments in context by explaining our approach to the definition of “relevant publisher”. At present, four interlocking tests define who is and who is not a relevant publisher for the purposes of these provisions. A relevant publisher must meet all of those. They must publish news-related material, be written by different authors, be subject to editorial control and be published in the course of business, whether or not that is with a view to profit.
	We want to ensure that the new approach acts as the incentive that Lord Justice Leveson intended, but we have to be clear and careful about which publishers are covered. He said of the new regulatory body:
	“Ideally the body would attract membership from all news and periodical publishers, including news publishers online. It is important for the credibility of the system, as well as for the promotion of high standards of journalism and the protection of individual rights, that the body should have the widest possible membership among news providers.”
	However, he was also clear that:
	“This is not meant to be prescriptive at the very small end of the market: I would not necessarily expect very small publishers to join the body”.
	We have therefore provided a definition of “relevant publisher” that captures national newspapers and their online editions, local and regional newspapers and their online editions, and online-only edited, press-like content providers.

Mike Freer: My local newspapers are concerned about why regional and local newspapers are caught in the new legislation,
	when they were not found to have had a hand in the scandal that brought us to where we are. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate why they are included?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that that point has exercised many individuals both within the Chamber and outside. It was clear from Lord Justice Leveson’s report that it was his intention for the local press to be part of the new self-regulatory regime. Equally, he understood that there are clear financial pressures on the local press, as there have been for many years, and that provisions might be needed within the self-regulatory regime that treat them differently. That is something for the press to deal with and I understand that they are looking at it. It is important, however, that the local press are part of the opportunity to have self-regulation. I reiterate to my hon. Friend that it is exactly that—self-regulation—and that there is no compulsion. I hope that that provides the reassurance that he is seeking.
	Exemplary damages and costs are designed to cover what might be termed more sophisticated news publishers, and will act as a key incentive to join the new press regulator. It is therefore essential that the definition of “relevant publisher” equates to the publications that we expect to be part of the regulator.
	Equally, the definition is not intended to capture a host of activities, including small-scale activity online. It is not intended to capture the news aggregation services of operators such as Yahoo! or MSN, or social networking sites. Nor is it aimed at sites that simply moderate the comments of others or aggregate a series of blogs without any active consideration of the content. By that I mean blog hosting services such as WordPress or Tumblr.
	I want to be really clear about the matter, because I know that many hon. Members have examined it in detail. To the extent that a website such as Mumsnet runs an online blog forum, that activity is clearly not covered by the definition of “relevant publisher”, as forums are not covered. The provisions may be relevant to a site such as Mumsnet only if it is in the business of commissioning articles and publishing news stories. Such businesses undertake different activities, one of which may well be publishing news, which would bring them into the scope of self-regulation. However, forums such as the one run by Mumsnet would not be covered.
	I also wish to clarify again the effects of the definition of “relevant publisher” on news aggregators. It is not our intention that the provisions should capture news aggregators such as Yahoo!, MSN or Google. News and content aggregators who license or otherwise acquire news-related content from third parties control that content only in as far as they decide how to present it in its totality, and to that extent they are not subjecting the material to editorial control. It is therefore not intended that services providing a platform for bloggers to post content are captured. Again, the control exercised by aggregators is limited to the high-level presentation of content, so news aggregators are not captured by our definition.
	We have, however, acknowledged the need for clarity, particularly with regard to small-scale blogs. When the provisions were last discussed in the other place, we undertook to have a period of reflection to assess
	whether any further clarity would be helpful and could be provided. My officials have since held a number of round-table discussions with small-scale blog sites to understand their concerns further. The amendments that we have tabled, with cross-party agreement, seek to provide that further clarification.
	Amendment (a) will add to the list of exemptions micro-businesses where they are a blog or where their publications are merely incidental to their other business. For organisations that publish news-related material incidentally to their main activity, that exemption will cover both online and traditional print. We use a definition of a micro-business commonly used by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which captures any business with fewer than 10 employees and a turnover of less than £2 million. The amendment will ensure that a micro-business that is either a small-scale blog or a website whose publication of news-related material is only incidental to its wider business is not included. That should place many blogs and other small web publishers squarely outside the incentives framework.
	Amendment (b) will allow those not captured to get the benefit of the costs incentives if they choose to join the recognised regulator, even though they are not a relevant publisher. That means that those exempted by virtue of the fact that they are a micro-business can choose to gain the benefits of the costs clauses by joining the regulator, providing an incentive for them to join if they so wish and a choice to small organisations, perhaps before they grow in size and inevitably become a relevant publisher. That is an important addition that will help support that part of the market.
	I can deal briefly with Lords amendments 17A and 17B. In short, the objective of the new costs regime is to incentive publishers financially to join the regulator. The intention behind subsection (2)(a) of the new clause “Awards of costs”, originally inserted in the Commons, is to allow costs to be awarded against a regulated publisher only if the claim before the courts is not capable of being resolved through the self-regulator’s arbitration scheme. However, to achieve that effect, the word “not” needs to be inserted into that subsection to avoid the opposite being the case. That was a simple drafting error that is corrected by Lords amendment 17A.
	Lords amendment 17B removes subsection (4) of the new clause “Awards of costs”, which we have concluded after further discussion is unnecessary and unduly restrictive.
	The clauses to which the Lords amendments relate have been carefully constructed to enable a system of incentivisation, which will form the basis of a new, tough self-regulator for the press in line with Leveson principles. The amendments are far removed from those that the noble Lords Skidelsky and Puttnam, among others, proposed for consideration in this House. Let us be clear that had we not successfully negotiated a cross-party royal charter, the House could well be debating a system of full statutory regulation that would have undermined the freedom of this country’s press.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for trying to give us greater clarity. Does she intend that websites run by political parties and MPs that comment on news and current affairs will not be included in the system?

Maria Miller: As always, my right hon. Friend cuts to the quick with a question that is important to many of us. If he examines the detail of our provisions and exemptions, and the Leveson report, he will see that the intention behind everything that we are doing is to focus self-regulation on those who publish news. I do not believe that any political party or MP intends primarily to publish news. That will be secondary, so it is not our intention that such websites should be the primary focus of the provisions. Obviously, there will be areas in the margins that need further clarification, and the courts will be able to provide that over time.

Julian Huppert: I am pleased that we are able to examine these details, because there has been much concern. I would be grateful for guidance on a few specific issues about how the provisions should be interpreted. For example, a lot of multi-author blogs involve people who are self-employed or who work on a voluntary basis. How should the number of employees be dealt with? Will the Secretary of State provide guidance on that, and on what the definition of a blog is?

Maria Miller: It will be full-time employees who are included in the employment measure, which is why it is important that not just employment but turnover is considered. Many organisations utilise a number of self-employed people, hence the twin-track approach.
	We have set out what we anticipate being considered a blog, which is about individual opinion being set forth through electronic media. That is relatively straightforward, although as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), there will always be more difficult matters to consider at the margins and the courts will be able to provide further information. We will also provide guidance in the usual way.
	The amendments address concerns raised by small-scale bloggers and other small businesses and will ensure that the definition of “relevant publisher” captures the news publishers that were the focus of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry. They have the full support of all three major parties in the House, and on that basis I commend them to the House.

Helen Goodman: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, which nails down the final details of the recommendations that Lord Justice Leveson made about setting up a new self-regulatory system for the press. When the Bill was introduced into the House a year ago, Lord Justice Leveson had not even reported, so we were fortunate to be able to thumb a lift with the Bill.
	On 18 March, on Third Reading, the House agreed to insert new clauses providing for new rules on exemplary damages and costs. They are an essential part of the cross-party agreement on a royal charter, which is part of the new framework of independent self-regulation guaranteed by law.
	As the Secretary of State said, the Bill aims to provide publishers with incentives to sign up to the new system of self-regulation that should meet the criteria set out in the royal charter. Publishers that join the recognised regulator will receive protection from the award of exemplary damages in media disputes, the opportunity to use an arbitration service, and cost benefits from having access to the arbitration service—that is one
	reason why it would benefit local as well as national newspapers. If a complainant chooses not to use the arbitration service, they can still be liable for costs even if they win.
	Lord Justice Leveson’s report was about the press, but the original drafting had the unintended effect of catching blogs in the net—a point noted in this House by my hon. Friend the indefatigable Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). That said, Lord Justice Leveson expressed the hope in recommendation 73 of his report that online publishers would also join a regulator. The Bill therefore needed to be amended to ensure that exemplary damages did not apply to blogs, but that they could receive the benefits of joining a recognised regulator. The Lords agreed a number of amendments, including a placeholder amendment, on 25 March.
	The Government’s decision to hold a “mini-consultation”—as I think the Secretary of State called it—to pause for reflection and consider the blogosphere was sensible. With the best will in the world, middle-aged Members of Parliament in both Houses are perhaps not absolutely up to speed with the way in which the blogosphere operates among the next generation, but I think we have now got it right. The Labour party agrees with the policy objectives that the Government are seeking to address: to exempt micro-businesses from the definition of “relevant publisher” where they are a blog or their publications are merely incidental to their other business; and to enable such micro-businesses to receive the benefits and cost incentives if they join a recognised regulator. The amendments use the micro-business definition for a small blog as one whose turnover is below £2 million and has up to 10 employees. It exempts such businesses from exemplary damages and enables them to benefit from the cost advantages of an arbitration service if they join a regulator—that last point will be particularly welcome in that community.
	Labour supports Lords amendments 17A and 17B and amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of amendment 131, and we will not divide the House in this debate. However, there is a thicket of double negatives, and for those outside the House who are following proceedings closely I ask the Secretary of State to provide assurances and clarity on a couple of points. Will she tell the House whether this approach minimises the risk of gaming, in particular by groups of companies? What is the position of campaigning groups’ newsletters—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) raised that point? I thought that Mumsnet would be excluded because its primary purpose is not to publish news—it is clear that motherhood is not a hobby, so it is not excluded on those grounds—or, indeed, UK Feminista. Neither of those is a charity and it might help if the Secretary of State said a little more about the newsletters of campaigning groups.
	Will she confirm that access to the arbitration system for those outside the regulatory body is limited to small-scale blogs, and say why she chose that approach? The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked about the definition of “blog”, and I assume that the Secretary of State has received legal advice that the word will be properly interpreted. She has already explained why she is addressing only the number of employees, and not those who are self-employed, but if she could elucidate a little on those points it would be helpful and we will be happy to support her this evening.

Julian Huppert: I do not wish to detain the House long but I am pleased that we have finally reached this point and that important details of Leveson are agreed. If I had been asked when I first looked at the Crime and Courts Bill which part I thought would keep us in ping-pong, it would not have been this provision or anything to do with blogs. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was referring to me as a middle-aged man. I am the proud holder of a Liberal Democrat Voice “blogger of the year” award, but even I would have struggled desperately to write this provision or make all the definitions. I hope that the Secretary of State has been able to be clear. There will be people who try to game this, but that is true of all legislation. I hope that the Bill has been made as game-proof as possible, while preserving the pleasure of the games that people play on blogs. I am delighted that we are at this point and I will not take up any more of the House’s time. I look forward to the Bill being enacted and I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify those few remaining points.

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for her helpful support as we try to resolve the final details of the Bill. Hon. Members have raised a number of issues in the short period that we have to debate the Bill, and hopefully I can resolve them to everybody’s satisfaction.
	I think that by “gaming” the hon. Lady meant the ability of companies to try to buck the system we have set up. It is always difficult to give a categorical assurance on that, but I think our approach minimises the risk of organisations taking such an approach. We have minimised the risk by using the definition of a micro-business, which does not just consider one element—staff—but staff and turnover. Therefore, if an organisation decided to ensure that all its staff were freelancers, it could not then play with its turnover in a way that would make it a micro-business. Equally, individual businesses will find it difficult to disaggregate their businesses in a way that would leave them registered as micro-businesses, and then duck the system without compromising the way in which they operate on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, a court will be capable of looking at the facts of a case to see whether an organisation has attempted to get around the rules, and that would be a material consideration. If an organisation was trying to circumvent the rules in the way it structured itself, the usual sanctions would be available.
	We are interested in many different organisations, but particularly campaigning groups. A number of other exemptions already exist in the definition of “relevant publisher” that deal with campaigning newsletters—a point that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I have discussed on a number of occasions. A public body or charity that publishes news-related material in connection
	with carrying out its functions, or a person who publishes a newsletter, circular or other document relating to their business that contains news-related material only incidentally, will not be caught by the self-regulatory approach. Such things will be exempt from these measures, which is important. News, and the delivery and publication of news, is not central to a company’s business, and I underline that point for all questions raised by hon. Members. Hopefully, that will provide some certainty on campaigning groups.
	The fourth point raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was access to arbitration for those that may not be termed as “relevant publishers”, other than those that are micro-businesses—excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for getting into the weeds with this, but it is necessary to answer the hon. Lady’s questions. Our consideration of micro-businesses in connection with blogging was to ensure that we did not unintentionally capture those businesses within the self-regulatory system, and also to ensure that those businesses were able—should they choose—to opt in to the self-regulatory part of the framework if they felt that was beneficial. It was never our intention more broadly to allow people to become a “relevant publisher”, not least because that would be outside the scope of today’s discussions. It is not our intention to allow people who are not relevant publishers in that way to have access to that status over and above the exemption we have outlined. Anything to do with the running of the self-regulatory regime is for the press to consider in more detail. We did not intend to cover that in our proposals today—the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has raised that matter with me.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, raised the final issue of the definition of “blog”. We are comfortable that there is a clear articulation of “blog” and “news”. Blogs are to do with the expression of the point of view of an individual or group of individuals. That is pretty straightforward, although, as with everything else, it will be subject to the courts’ deliberations at the appropriate time.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland implied that the Government believed an error had been made on micro-blogs, which therefore required an amendment. I should gently tell her that we feel that the measure was reasonably clear to start with, but that the amendment adds extra clarity. In that spirit, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to explain the amendments. I also thank the hon. Lady for her support, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Liberal Democrats for his support.
	Lords amendment 17A agreed to.
	Lords amendment 17B agreed to.
	Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 131A.

Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
	Third Reading

David Mundell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill takes forward the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission to address the loophole in Scots law that prevents the prosecution of partnerships that have dissolved. It addresses the limitation of the law in Scotland which meant that attempted prosecutions could not proceed following the serious fire at Rosepark nursing home in Uddingston, Lanarkshire on the night of 31 January 2004, when 14 people tragically lost their lives. Rosepark was run by three individuals who had come together to form a business partnership. Following the fire, the partnership dissolved. The partnership, as employer, was alleged to have committed offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The Crown Office made three attempts to prosecute the partnership, but as the High Court had held that the partnership ceased to exist on dissolution, the prosecutions could not proceed.
	In November 2012, the Bill was introduced to Parliament by the Advocate-General for Scotland. The Bill is one of only three Scotland-specific Bills introduced in Westminster since devolution. It reminds us that Scotland has two Governments and two Parliaments, both with their own contributions to make in improving the lives of people in Scotland.
	The Bill marks a significant milestone. This is the first occasion when the House of Lords special Public Bill procedure for Law Commission Bills has been used in relation to Scottish Law Commission proposals. The special procedure allows non-controversial legislation to sidestep the competition for parliamentary time on the Floor of the House. The Bill demonstrates why that procedure is so valuable.
	The Bill progressed through Committee in both Houses, allowing close and robust scrutiny of each of its clauses, with good opportunity for debate. It has received broad consensus from all sides. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and all hon. Members who have participated in the process.
	The Government are grateful to the Scottish Law Commission, and in particular to Patrick Layden, who has worked tirelessly alongside the Advocate-General for Scotland and the Scotland Office to produce a Bill that provides a very simple, very sound solution that ensures that partnerships and culpable partners cannot evade prosecution by dissolving.
	The support demonstrated by hon. Members is gratefully noted. We are particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood), in whose constituency the Rosepark nursing home was situated. We also gratefully note the support of the Scottish Government. We are immensely grateful for the support demonstrated by the Lord Advocate, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland, which have all broadly welcomed the Bill, in giving evidence to the special Public Bill Committee in the other place.
	The provisions of the Bill are to be commenced the day after Royal Assent. The Bill makes valuable and necessary reforms to the law of partnerships in Scotland and I commend it to the House.

William Bain: The Opposition endorse Third Reading. Throughout previous stages of the Bill both in the House and in the other place, right hon. and hon. Members have kept very much at the forefront of our minds the families and the 14 people who lost their lives in the dreadful fire at Rosepark nursing home in Uddingston, south Lanarkshire, which was caused by an earthing fault at the back of an electrical distribution box in a storage cupboard at the nursing home.
	As I said in Second Reading Committee, a fatal accident inquiry in 2011 chaired by Sheriff Principal Brian Lockhart established that some or all of the lives lost could have been saved if a risk assessment had been conducted and if it had led to the taking of reasonable precautions. That could have avoided or minimised the loss of life. The inquiry found fault with the maintenance of the electrical installation at the care home; inadequate fire safety and drills; inadequate management of fire safety, which was found to be systematically and seriously defective; and weak interaction between the nursing home and Lanarkshire health board.
	The laws we make in this House can never repair the feelings that arise from the loss of loved ones, but the Bill will ensure that others never suffer a similar lack of closure as a result of flawed processes in the criminal law caused by deficiencies in the law of partnerships in Scotland. We should therefore welcome the work of the Scottish Law Commission on the matter, its continuing contribution to keeping the laws of Scotland made by both Parliaments under review, and its recommending modernisation when necessary in the public interest.
	In particular, we welcome the work predating the Bill that was done on the consultation process by the commission’s chair, Lady Clark, the former Member for Edinburgh Pentlands and former Advocate-General for Scotland; by the commission’s previous chair; by Lord Drummond Young; and by Mr Patrick Layden QC. Although the Scottish Law Commission consulted widely on whether it should attempt to deal with the problem by virtue of a comprehensive reform of partnership law, in the end, pending consideration of wider reforms, the commission settled on the more targeted solution of permitting partnerships to have a degree of continuing legal personality for a limited period in terms of criminal proceedings and prosecutions.
	The Opposition welcome the fact that the Bill shows this Parliament’s continued belief in the importance of the reform of private law in Scotland under areas reserved to the UK Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998. Scotland has two Parliaments that make laws on behalf of its people. It is noteworthy that the Bill is the third Scotland-only Bill on a reserved matter to be debated in this House since the devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I hope there will be many more of them in the future, should the people of Scotland choose to remain within the United Kingdom in the referendum to be held next year.
	The tragedy at Rosepark nursing home in 2004 claimed the lives of 14 residents. However, because the partnership that owned and managed the home was dissolved after
	the fire, but before the Crown Office in Scotland could initiate any proceedings for prosecution, the partnership could not be prosecuted. That principle was established in the case of Balmer
	v.
	Her Majesty’s Advocate in 2008. Following the decision in that case, the Scottish Law Commission published a discussion paper and consulted on possible options for reforming the law of partnerships in Scotland in this area. That consultation led directly to the Bill before the House this evening.
	It is an important principle of commercial law that the legal personality of a company or partnership differs from that of the directors or partners. It is possible to prosecute a partnership in Scotland quite separately from the individual partners under Scots criminal law. Indeed, it is vital that we uphold the concept that legal persons, as well as the individual partners in their own right, can be subject to liability for actions deemed to be breaches of the criminal law.
	Another core principle of the law of partnerships in Scotland is that of joint and several liability for civil and criminal obligations incurred by the partnership. Should a partnership be convicted of an offence following prosecution and be subject to a fine, then any or all of the partners may be held liable for payment of any such fine imposed by the courts. That has been seen as critical in ensuring that the law can attach responsibility for payment to at least one member of the partnership. That partner then has the right to seek recompense for the outstanding share of the financial liability thereby incurred from the other partners, through a civil action under the partnership agreement and the Partnership Act 1890.
	The Bill closes the loophole in the law that was exposed by the Rosepark tragedy. It will permit a prosecution to be brought against a dissolved partnership up to five years following the deemed dissolution in respect of conduct that arose out of the partnership while it was still in existence. Actions in criminal law may also be brought against partnerships where the composition of partners or the membership structure have altered, where partners have left, or new partners have joined. Any member of a partnership may thus still be liable for any criminal offences committed while a member of the partnership and through any change in composition.
	Circumstances that could give rise to prosecutions under the clause include: potential breaches of section 36 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; cases where an individual’s acts or omissions have been a cause of the offence; cases where an individual is held guilty, art and part, of a common-law or statutory offence; cases where an individual has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of an offence under statute law; or cases where an individual has committed an offence with their consent or connivance, or even through neglect. The range of offences potentially liable for commission by individual members of a partnership was significantly widened by the Scottish Parliament, through section 53 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.
	Should a partnership be convicted of an offence, any legal rule, whether in statute or common law, relating to the liability of the partners, applies as if the partnership had not been dissolved. This permits joint and several
	liability for any fine imposed by the courts following a successful prosecution, in line with sections 4 and 9 of the Partnership Act 1890 and subject to the provisions in clause 3 of the Bill. Any fine imposed following a conviction may be recovered against the assets of the partnership, or any or all of the individual partners, each of whom would have a right to claim a remedy for the other shares from assets of the partnership, or from the other partners’ personal assets. In some statutes, such as the Health Act 2006, the law restricts the payment of fines to the partnership assets only, but for a dissolved partnership under the Bill that rule will not apply, because if a partnership is dissolved there will be no partnership assets and any fine might otherwise prove to be unenforceable—that would be unacceptable.
	The sole element of contention that arose during the passage of the Bill, in this House and in the other place, stemmed from clause 4, under which it is possible for someone to have joined a partnership after the commission of a potentially prosecutable offence and then face liability for some or all of any penalty applied by the court following a finding of guilt, despite the fact that that person was not involved at the partnership at the time of commission of the offence. That was a significant concern for the Law Society and others in Scotland, as many businesses are organised through the partnership model.
	I moved a probing amendment in Committee, following similar amendments that had been moved in the other place, to test the arguments as to whether an exemption could be created for innocent partners who become members of a firm, but are unaware of any potential criminal liability that could give rise to conviction and the imposition of a fine, who then face demands to meet a share or even the entirety of a fine from personal assets in the absence of partnership assets or personal assets from the pre-existing members of the firm. We were reassured by the Commission that it is likely to keep the operation of this provision under review, and that a more comprehensive analysis of the potential reform of partnership law remains a possibility. In that spirit, we were happy to withdraw the amendment.
	In conclusion, the Bill closes an important loophole that the unsuccessful attempts to prosecute the owners of Rosepark nursing home, following the fatal fire, brought to light. We cannot remove the suffering that the families and loved ones of the deceased have experienced in these past nine years, but we can ensure that, by enacting these reforms, other people affected by the conduct of partnerships are never put in a similar position again. That is the best tribute we in this Parliament can make to the 14 people who so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives. For those reasons, the Opposition strongly support the Bill.

Michael Weir: I would also like to add my support to the Bill. You may be witnessing an almost unique occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker: all parties in this House and the Scottish Government and Parliament support the Bill and are anxious for it proceed. As has been said, the genesis of the Bill was the Rosepark fire—a great tragedy in which many people unnecessarily lost their lives—and the inability, because of this quirk in Scottish partnership law, to prosecute. It is important that that is put right.
	We had a good debate in Committee. The speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) probably went on as long as the Committee stage, but the Bill was considered in Committee in detail. As he said, the Law Society of Scotland still has a concern—I should perhaps declare a tangential interest as I used to be a member—regarding its impact on partnerships. We went into this in some detail, and I think none of us could come up with a way of dealing with this particular issue. However, it is important to make the change, irrespective of slight concerns. I hope the Bill proceeds. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is nothing we can now do for the people who so tragically lost their lives at Rosepark, but we can ensure that it does not happen again. We have come together to do that.
	The Minister and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East were slightly naughty to present the Bill as an argument for the Union, as it could have been introduced in any place that had the power to do so, whether in Edinburgh or London. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East said that this was the third Scotland-only Bill on a reserved matter to be debated in this House since devolution. It will undoubtedly be the last—the next will be in an independent Scottish Parliament.

David Mundell: With the leave of the House, I will seek to conclude this debate on the basis of agreement. I am sure that this will not be the last Bill affecting only Scotland brought before the House, but we will leave those debates for another day.
	I concur with the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and for Angus (Mr Weir) that the Bill will, I hope, go some way to set right the wrongs of the Rosepark fire and bring some comfort to the families of the victims on that terrible evening.
	I would like to thank members of staff in the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate General who worked hard to bring the Bill before the House. I am pleased that we can now move forward with it in a spirit of consensus in order to deal with an identified anomaly in the existing laws of Scotland. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
	I welcome this opportunity to listen to Members’ views on the British Government’s submission to be made this year under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. It is nice to see the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) in his place. I think we have spent more time opposite each other than we have with our respective spouses in recent weeks.
	As in previous years, the Government will provide information to the European Commission on the UK’s economic and budgetary position in line with our commitments under the EU stability and growth pact. This submission, known as the convergence programme, is a legal requirement under agreements this country has entered into, and of course the British Government take such commitments seriously. One must also say, however, that its very name represents something of a relic from a past age—a time when Britain was still ruled by a Government committed in principle to joining the single currency. I can assure the House that that era is well and truly dead and buried.
	Members might well ask what purpose is served by this annual exercise and the associated debate in the House. [Interruption.] I thought that this might find an echo in the Chamber. Without wishing to anticipate Members’ contributions, which I look forward to, I would like to suggest three areas for this afternoon’s discussion. I wish first to debate British economic policy within the still relevant context of Europe; secondly, to consider the co-ordination of national economic policies across the EU; and thirdly to reflect on our great good fortune in not having joined the single currency, despite the siren voices heard in this place and elsewhere—thanks, in no small measure, to those who had the courage and foresight to speak against British involvement at a time when their warnings were subject to such derision.

Kelvin Hopkins: I remember a time when all three major parties, the TUC and just about every good and great person across the land supported joining the exchange rate mechanism. I was one of those who from the beginning said that we should not do so. At the moment, we are all against the single currency, but I remember a time when even the Minister’s party was moving in that direction.

Greg Clark: I do not think that that is entirely right, although I happily acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was on the side of right throughout. I remember working for the Foreign Secretary when he was leader of our party. In November 1997, when, as the hon. Gentleman said, the received opinion was that our joining was inevitable, my right hon. Friend made the courageous decision to set out in a lecture to the conference of the
	CBI, which then was in favour of joining, the forensic reasons why it would not be in our interests. He committed then, right at the beginning of the parliamentary process that resulted in these measures, to campaign for Britain to stay outside it. While I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s distinguished record, I think he would acknowledge that the Conservative party was the first party to commit itself to oppose these measures.
	The Government plan to make their submission by 30 April, with the approval, we hope, of both Houses of Parliament. It explains the Government’s medium-term fiscal policies, as already set out in the 2012 autumn statement and Budget 2013, and includes the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts. We think it right and proper to draw from previously published documents presented to Parliament, rather than incur the cost and time to produce bespoke documents for this purpose.

William Cash: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very document to which he refers states:
	“The IMF forecasts UK GDP per person to grow faster than the rest of the G7 between 2012 and 2017, with the exception of the US”?
	Of course, he will have read the comments made by Madame Lagarde only yesterday. Does he not find them a little incongruous, given that the IMF is now taking rather a different view?

Greg Clark: The IMF is considering its view, and we will see what it has to say in the months ahead, when it issues its review. We have always been clear that, as we have advised all EU member states, keeping control of finances is an important precondition for growth. That is an important matter.
	As I said, we have been parsimonious in not generating excess quantities of paper. Members will be aware—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will be—that we did not follow the advice that other countries followed and align our financial year to fit in with the norm in Europe. We think it right to stick with our financial year and make use of the documents presented.
	With the Budget announcement having taken place on 20 March, shortly before Easter, I appreciate that the timetable was tight, but we made every effort to provide early copies of the convergence programme to the House and the other place in advance of this debate.

Christopher Leslie: What was going on with the Order Paper before the debate? I think that the Leader of the House, or perhaps the Minister, tabled a motion not to have this debate, but to kick it up to a Delegated Legislation Committee. I understand that some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), objected, and now we are not debating whether to have the debate upstairs. What was going on? Why did the Government try to shove this out of the line of sight?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I am always happy to debate with him, especially on the Floor of the House, which I very much prefer. He will know that at this time in the parliamentary Session, as
	we approach the end of the Parliament, the business managers—the Leader of the House is here—are particularly jealous of the Chamber’s time, including in respect of the sorts of debate we have had today. They had the foresight, however, to anticipate being fortunate enough to have some time today on the Floor of the House. It was right, therefore, that we agreed with the proposal, and here we are today.
	As I said, we have economically re-versioned the Budget 2013 document to set out the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. As confirmed by the independent OBR, the UK economy is still recovering from the biggest financial crisis in generations, one of the deepest recessions suffered by any major economy and a decade of hollow growth built on unsustainable debt levels. In June 2010, the Government set out a comprehensive strategy to deal with the deficit, protect the economy and provide for the foundations of recovery. This economic plan combines monetary activism with fiscal responsibility and supply side reform.
	The Government are making progress. We have restored fiscal credibility, thus enabling an activist monetarist policy and the automatic stabilisers to support the economy. The deficit has been cut by a third over three years and is projected to fall in every year of the forecast. The OBR has judged that the Government remain on track to meet the fiscal mandate one year early, while 1.25 million private sector jobs have been created. Employment is just below record levels and we have kept interest rates at near-record levels, helping families and businesses.
	However, there is much more to do. It is important that we understand why the road to recovery has been more difficult than was first anticipated. Although Opposition Front Benchers profess an internationalist outlook, they sometimes debate economic policy as though Britain’s economy was closed off from the rest of the world and invulnerable to other countries.

David Nuttall: Given that we have faithfully submitted convergence programme documents every year for a number of years, is the Minister as surprised as I am that some of our continental neighbours have not taken a bit more notice of the path that this Government have pursued or taken a bit more action to get their spending in line, as this Government have?

Greg Clark: In fact, some countries are recognising that, but we want to set an example. It is important that we stick to our plans and continue to benefit from the confidence that the markets have shown through the level of interest rates. We also say in our deliberations in Brussels, as well as making the point in budget discussions, that when times are difficult, belts need to tightened.

Kelvin Hopkins: I must say that I am astonished. It is almost as if no one in the Chamber has read the newspapers over the weekend and seen the IMF report that it got the premise for austerity completely wrong. Owing to a mistaken figure in a spreadsheet, we are all going for austerity, which is a terrible mistake. Is that not the reality?

Greg Clark: I do not agree with that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the IMF recommends to many countries around the world, not least in Europe—this
	is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) referred to—that they should get their public finances in order.
	When the Office for Budget Responsibility revised its forecast for global economic growth—and eurozone growth in particular—and world trade downwards, that had an inevitable impact on UK growth, given that the euro area is the destination for 40% of UK exports. Over the past year, net trade was the key factor in the underperformance of the economy relative to earlier OBR forecasts, as well as in the downward revision of the forecasts this year and the year after. Fiscal consolidation, on the other hand, has not had a larger drag on the economy than the OBR expected in June 2010. Indeed, the UK’s fiscal situation argues strongly in favour of maintaining our commitment to deficit reduction.
	Opposition Members sometimes accuse us of going too far, too fast, but there is further to go and we must get there as fast as we sensibly can, not least because so much rests on the market-tested credibility earned by this Government. The near historic low gilt yields that underpin the low interest rates that are so important to millions of households and businesses cannot be put at risk. As shown by global developments, the consequence of losing market confidence can be sudden and severe. A sharp rise in interest rates would be particularly damaging to an economy weighed down by the burden of so much public, corporate and personal debt, built up during a time when it should not have been.

William Cash: The OBR’s executive summary states:
	“Public sector net debt…is forecast to peak at 85.6 per cent of GDP in 2016-17, rather than 79.9 per cent a year earlier as in our December forecast.”
	In reality, debt is simply out of control, although much of it is the responsibility of the previous Government.

Greg Clark: Of course my hon. Friend is right that the inevitable consequence of running a deficit is that debt increases. It continues to be our purpose to reduce the deficit and return the economy to a balanced budget in order to start to pay down debt, and it is important that we should do that.
	Budget 2013 also set out measures to equip the UK to compete in a global race. The Government will give every business and charity a £2,000 allowance towards their national insurance contributions from April 2014, benefiting more than 1 million businesses. We will achieve the ambition for the UK tax system to be one of the most competitive in the world, which includes a further cut in corporation tax to 20%—the joint lowest in the G20—from April 2015. We will increase capital investment plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16. Public investment will be higher on average over this Parliament and the next than under the previous Government. We will devolve a greater proportion of growth-related spending to local areas from April 2015, in response to Lord Heseltine’s review.
	As well as action in the UK to tackle the economic challenges that we face, progress needs to be made to tackle the crisis in the euro areas. However, the growth challenges in Europe continue to be serious, as every Member is aware. We have seen a welcome fall in borrowing rates, particularly for Spain and Italy, from the high levels that they reached last summer, but recent
	events in Cyprus remind us—and leave us in no doubt—that the euro area continues to be a fragile environment. Only a sustained period of successful reforms and improvements in financial markets can lay the foundations for growth. Economic activity in the European Union remains subdued. In the euro area, most of the so-called peripheral economies are in pronounced recessions, with weak labour markets, adverse credit conditions and an ongoing process of deleveraging all weighing on growth.
	Structural reforms at the national level should be supported by the co-ordination of progress towards freer markets at the EU level. The improvement of the single market, regulatory reform and free trade agreements can all help to improve the growth prospects of every country in the EU at a minimal cost. This is a critical agenda that the UK and other like-minded states have advanced at successive European Councils, including in March, and we will continue to push.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend says that it is critical that we enter into EU free trade agreements. I hope he appreciates that under the majority voting system, the power of the European Commission under the Lisbon treaty means that at present our influence is only 8% at maximum—although it will shortly rise, albeit to only 12%. The whole policy will effectively be driven by the European Union and its objectives, which are largely dominated by Germany. It will not be in British interests.

Greg Clark: It is possible for our influence to go beyond our voting weight, just as there are Members of this House—I might include my hon. Friend in this—whose influence goes beyond their proportional representation in this place. I hope he agrees with that.
	It is important to maintain momentum on bilateral EU free trade agreements. Ninety per cent of global growth will come from outside Europe after 2015, so the EU needs an outward-looking trade agenda. A free trade agreement with the United States of America is, and must be, a major opportunity that should be pursued with all vigour. It is estimated that EU free trade agreements that are currently under way or in the pipeline could add £200 billion to EU GDP and create 2 million jobs across the EU. We welcome the European Commission’s stated commitment to bringing forward concrete proposals to reduce regulatory barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is long overdue and we look forward to seeing those proposals in June.
	It is estimated that removing all barriers in the single market would increase UK GDP by about 7%, while prices could fall by 5% due to increased competition. The single market already adds €600 billion a year to the EU’s economy. Further progress is possible. Ambitious implementation of the services directive by all member states could result in increased national incomes. Service liberalisation would be particularly beneficial to the UK, as services are an area of enormous comparative advantage, as we know, and the UK has had a trade surplus with the EU in services since 2005.

Mark Reckless: The Financial Secretary cites a number of reports that credit apparently enormously large gains to the single market and, potentially, other trade arrangements. May I ask him to look at the original reports with a certain scepticism?
	When I used to work with him, I think he would have been disappointed if I had done my analyses in the same slapdash way.

Greg Clark: One of the reasons why I was pleased to employ my hon. Friend was his forensic and questioning eye. He is absolutely right that when we look closely at the measures and their estimated impact, we should make our own assessment. However, I think that all of us, including my hon. Friend, would agree that a genuine single market in, for example, energy—an area in which he and I have an interest—could help to increase competition in the EU. As we know, competition is one way we can drive efficiency, which is very much in the interests of all citizens in this country and across the EU.
	In addition to structural reforms involving each EU member state and the co-ordination of free trade policies at the EU level, we need reforms in the way the EU works. In his speech of 23 January, the Prime Minister proposed certain principles for reform. He said that the EU had to improve its competitiveness, to become a more flexible organisation, to ensure that its rules were fair for all members and to allow power to flow from the EU to its members and not just the other way around. He also said that the EU had to improve its democratic accountability and to re-engage with voters across Europe. It is national Parliaments that provide the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU. The fact that this debate tonight is being held at the behest of the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee serves only to underline that important fact.
	Those objectives are complicated by the presence in the EU of the eurozone. Britain has an immediate interest in the stability of the single currency, and we need to be aware of the changes that a more tightly integrated euro area will bring to the EU’s present structure. It is important that we ensure that the EU continues to work for all its members, and that the interests of those outside the single currency should be acknowledged and, more specifically, protected. In particular, it should be understood that whatever binding surveillance eurozone members might agree on, Britain will not be bound by it.
	As I said earlier, the convergence programme is, by its very nature, something that harks back to the days when it was simply assumed that Britain was on a one-way route to monetary union across the EU. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has suggested, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but let us not forget that, at that time, he and many Conservative Members had the foresight to see any such convergence as the wishful thinking that it was—and, to a certain extent, still is. Those Members included my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), now the Foreign Secretary. As the newly elected leader of the Conservative party in 1997, he had this to say about the idea of dragging Britain into the single currency:
	“What are the chances that we will converge in the near future? What are the chances we will converge for ever, without ever diverging again? And would it be wise to run our economy so as to make it converge rather than prosper in its own right?”
	Those were wise words, and I look forward to hearing many more in this debate.

Christopher Leslie: That was a paean of praise for the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) from the Minister; it is a pity that there was not quite so much for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of the strange things about this debate is the strong sense of having been here before to debate this issue. Indeed, it was about this time last year that we did so—and, sadly for me, the year before that as well.

William Cash: Twenty times.

Christopher Leslie: In my case, it is not 20 times. I have responded to these debates only since the general election.
	The key to the debate is the Budget Red Book. I suspect that many Members are not in the Chamber this evening because they have looked at the screens advertising the debate and seen a reference to some obscure European legislation, but I draw all Members attention to page minus 2 at the very beginning of the Red Book. In tiny 9-point font, beneath the statement that the Red Book is printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum, it states:
	“The Budget Report is presented pursuant to section 2 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 and…constitutes the Government’s assessment under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 that will form the basis of the Government’s submissions to the European Commission”.
	If Members knew that we were debating whether the Chancellor’s assessment of the economy was a true and accurate reflection of what is going on in the UK economy, for the purposes of that Act of Parliament, they would be absolutely astonished.
	We have obligations under the Maastricht treaty articles; that is essentially what we are talking about when we refer to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. Article 103 states:
	“For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance”—
	I know that those words stick in the throats of some hon. Members—
	“Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy”.

Anne Main: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the Opposition Benches are empty because nobody on his side could be bothered to come and scrutinise this document?

Christopher Leslie: These Benches are not massively more empty than those on the hon. Lady’s own side of the House. She will have to accept that this can, at face value, appear to be quite an obscure issue. [Interruption.] There are not many people on her side of the House, but I do not want to get into a contest on that matter.

Kelvin Hopkins: I want to pay my hon. Friend a compliment by saying that Labour Members do not need to turn up because they have such confidence in our shadow Minister and they know that he will speak for us.

Christopher Leslie: That is one way of looking at it.
	The point that concerns me is that the Government have in recent days tried to shove this issue off the Floor of the House and sweep it upstairs to a Delegated Legislation Committee. The Minister has said that this is a busy time of year and that the Government do not want to waste the House’s time with these questions, but we are already faced with an opaque description of the legislation, so it is no wonder that they are trying to push it out of parliamentary time. It is, in fact, the kind of legislation that ought to be advertised more to hon. Members.

William Cash: I would no doubt have a lot in common with some of the remarks made by those who were critical of the Maastricht treaty. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me whether he would like to leave the existing treaties, and to describe the basis on which this nonsense, this farrago, is now being conducted?

Christopher Leslie: Well, this does feel like rather an anachronism, but we have legal obligations under those treaties. No doubt there will be revisions, and some of the reporting requirements ought to be considered afresh, but my principal concern is whether it is right for the House to endorse the Red Book as a true and accurate reflection of what is happening in the UK economy. In my view, the Government must be kidding if they are saying that the Red Book reflects the facts. It is more like a work of fiction. They have been spinning furiously as the key indicators have taken a turn for the worse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said. In fact, the Red Book is little more than a vanity exercise cloaked in an official publication. It revolves entirely around the Chancellor’s need to retro-justify his failing economic ideology.
	I invite hon. Members to look seriously—and without cracking up—at page 1 of the Red Book, and to ask themselves genuinely and dispassionately whether it is a true reflection of what is happening in the UK economy. The first line states:
	“The Government’s objective is to…build…a fairer society”.
	Well, tell that to those who are struggling with the new bedroom tax while they watch the great and good millionaires of this country rake in a typical £100,000 tax cut, thanks to the reduction in the 50p rate of income tax for those earning more than £150,000. So much for a fairer society!
	Here is another one:
	“The Government’s plan…is based on…fiscal responsibility to deal with our debts with a credible debt reduction plan”.
	That is in total contradiction with the first page of the Office for Budget Responsibility report, which states plainly that the deficit reduction plan has “stalled”. That is the word that the OBR uses. No one would think from reading the Budget Red Book that the Government had presided over an increase in the national debt of 38% during their three years in office.

Mark Reckless: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the solution is to borrow more?

Christopher Leslie: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are already borrowing more. We shall see the borrowing figures tomorrow, and we shall see what happens to their strategy. The deficit
	reduction plan has gone. It has vanished. It has totally disappeared. It is a dead plan. It is no more. It is deceased. It is incumbent on Government Members to realise that they need a different strategy for deficit reduction; they need one that will succeed.
	I want to return to the first page of the Red Book, which we are asked to approve as a true reflection of the state of our economy. It states that
	“the Government is committed to keeping costs down for families to help with the cost of living”.
	Tell that to the typical household now being asked to pay an extra £891. People are worse off because of the measures taken since 2010—not to mention the shrinking real wages relative to rapid price rises. How about the following quote for masterly understatement? It states at the foot of the page that we are experiencing
	“a more subdued and uneven recovery than expected”.
	Our economy shrank in the last three months of 2012, and we will see whether we are recovering when we see the growth figures for the current quarter on Thursday. How on earth could that be viewed as a recovery? This is an exceptionally disingenuous document. Reading page 1 of the Red Book is enough to make any dispassionate observer double-take their grip on the tough realities of the world around them.
	We should therefore dwell for a moment on the real-world evidence. A week is certainly a long time in the Chancellor’s political lifetime—what a week has just passed. The unemployment figures were exceptionally grim. The Bank of England’s latest release on trends in lending showed that, measured annually, the amount of lending to UK businesses from banks and building societies fell in the three months to February. The Bank of England said that lending to businesses fell by £5 billion during those three months and that the decline was broad based across all sectors. So much for funding for lending.
	Way before we got to the Budget, we suggested that the Chancellor should take steps to reform the funding for lending programme, but he did not do so in the Budget. It should not take an intervention from the International Monetary Fund to prick up the Chancellor’s ears and make him realise that he needs to do something about funding for lending. Ministers will have to be far more adept and fleet of foot than that.
	The Treasury Select Committee said last week that it was by no means clear that the cornerstone of the Budget—the Help to Buy housing scheme—would benefit first-time buyers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North alluded to earlier, the academic methodology underpinning the key paper written by the Chancellor’s favourite economic theorists—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff—was discredited when a graduate student found a fatal flaw in their excel spreadsheets that supposedly underpinned the whole extreme austerity course advocated by the Treasury.
	Despite the usual diplomatic finesse employed by the IMF towards its affiliating member states, its chief economist Olivier Blanchard said that the Chancellor was “playing with fire”. A year ago, the IMF was forecasting growth of 2% this year, but it is now expecting growth of just 0.7%. It was a serious mistake for the Chancellor to ignore the IMF’s calls for a reassessment of fiscal policy in the Budget, and it is right to repeat its
	warnings. Even Christine Lagarde, not known for departing from the Chancellor’s opinions on these matters, said that the pace of fiscal consolidation
	“has to be adjusted depending on the circumstances and given the weak growth that we have observed lately because of reduced demand addressed to the economy”
	and that
	“now might be the time to consider”
	doing so.

David Nuttall: We are not talking about whether this document should be submitted to the IMF; we are talking about submitting it to the EU. If we compare our growth with that of the eurozone, the EU’s own body, EUROSTAT, is forecasting that growth in the eurozone will go down by 0.3% and that ours will go up by 0.9%.

Christopher Leslie: To whomever we are asked to submit this document—to the IMF, the EU, the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or his mother-in-law—I would be embarrassed, if I were the hon. Gentleman, to stand behind it as a true reflection of the state of the UK economy. To cap it all, last week, we saw another humiliating blow to a Prime Minister and Chancellor who kept saying that our triple A credit rating was the No. 1 test of their economic and political credibility.

John Redwood: Given that the latest Government plans envisage borrowing £60 billion more in 2014-15 than in the original summer 2010 plan, how much more than that extra £60 billion borrowing would the hon. Gentleman recommend?

Christopher Leslie: Unfortunately, we are not likely to have a general election until 2015. I would be grateful if hon. Members did whatever they could to bring that forward a little, but heaven knows what state the economy will be in—even by the time we get to 26 June, which I believe encompasses the spending review period. I am sure that yet further revisions of these figures, which keep changing like shifting sands before us, will be made. We simply do not know what a future Labour Government will inherit—hopefully in 2015. I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman nearer the time. One thing seems clear to me: we have to take some bold action to stimulate the economy, rather than adopt this laissez-faire, arms-folded, non-interventionist approach. Even the Financial Secretary used to disparage that, but he has now signed up wholly to it.

Greg Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), who said:
	“Long-term interest rates are the simplest measure of monetary and fiscal…credibility”?

Christopher Leslie: Long-term interest rates reflect a number of factors. Government Members would like to think that low bond yields were a reflection of fiscal policy measures alone—[Interruption.] The Minister should hear me out. He likes to think that that is the one test. As I say, it used to be retention of the triple A credit rating, but that has gone, so something else has had to
	be found. Long-term bond yields, however, are also a reflection of who is purchasing them. I do not know whether the Minister can help us out by elaborating on who exactly is purchasing the Government bond yields, because the Bank of England seems to be doing an awful lot. One branch of the UK Government institutions is helping out the other branch of Government institutions—depressing, of course, that yield. The Minister should not be too proud of market expectations that things are going to be so bad for so long that our interest rates are at the ultra-low level. It is not a reflection of fiscal policy; it is a reflection of expectations of future economic performance and of the interventions in monetary policy by the Bank of England.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is it not simply the case that bond markets can get things terribly wrong as well? We know of the 1929 crash and the 2008 crash, for example. I have no doubt that some have great optimism about the future of the world and national economies, but they can get it wrong, too.

Christopher Leslie: That is why some in the bond markets in the City and even the IMF and other economic commentators and business leaders are increasingly saying—as PIMCO did today in its intervention on these issues—that we have to do something about this. Demand in the economy is cripplingly bad; we have to do something to take a different course. The Chancellor’s plan is not just failing; it is adding to our problems with the public finances. We will see the state of the deficit reduction plan and what is happening with this trajectory when we see the figures tomorrow. We hear of blaming the snow, blaming the royal wedding, blaming all sorts of other players including the European Union; it is amazing how we never hear that it is the fault of those who currently occupy the Treasury.

Greg Clark: I have a genuine question for the hon. Gentleman again. Was the shadow Chancellor wrong when he said:
	“Long-term interests are the simplest measure of monetary and fiscal policy credibility”?
	When he said that, interest rates were at 4.75%. Was he wrong?

Christopher Leslie: The Minister can ask me the same question as many times as he likes, but I will give him exactly the same answer. There are a number of reflections and metrics for judging economic performance, but in these particularly stagnant economic circumstances, I do not think that he should wear as a badge of honour those ultra-low bond yields because they actually reflect low and depressed expectations about the future performance of the economy. He knows that that is true. It is also a reason why not just Moody’s but Fitch have taken out the legs from beneath the UK’s triple A credit rating after three years of stagnation, rising unemployment and billions more borrowing to pay for economic failure. It is time that the Treasury woke up and realised that its plan is causing long-term damage not just to the public finances, but to British families and businesses as they pay the price. When even their biggest allies—the IMF and the credit rating agencies—abandon the Government, it is time to put political pride aside and finally act to kick-start the economy.
	Most independent forecasts suggest that on Thursday the GDP figures will show small positive growth, but growth of just 0.3% would simply mean that the economy was back to where it was six months ago. After three years of stagnation, we need to see decisive evidence this week that a strong and sustained recovery is finally under way—otherwise the Chancellor will definitely be in real trouble. We cannot seriously be expected to ratify this Budget Red Book as our representation to the European Union, or anyone else, of how our economy is performing.
	Are we supposed to ignore the double downgrading of the UK’s credit rating, first by Moody’s and then by Fitch? Are we supposed to skim over the new figures from the Office for National Statistics, which show that the average weekly pay packet was £464 in February and £480 in the same month last year? That is the worst set of data since the ONS started recording such facts. Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to the fact that youth unemployment rose by more than 20,000 last month? The total figure is now just under 1 million. Should we just forget about the risks of that lost generation?
	The Red Book is a staggering work of deception wrapped in the heroic conceit of a Government who are trying to fool people into thinking that they are on track. They are losing control of the public finances because they have lost the plot when it comes to the relationship between economic growth, jobs, the economy, and the revenues that we need in order to get the deficit down. It would be far simpler for the House to reject the motion and return the Government to the drawing board to get their act together and work on an alternative plan that might actually give us the bold action that we need, rather than the stagnation that we are suffering.

William Cash: This is an extremely important debate, but I am sorry to have to say that the Government did their best to prevent it from being held on the Floor of the House. Speaking as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I feel that that must be put on the record. It was very unfortunate, to say the least, and no doubt the Committee will consider it when we meet next Wednesday.
	Having said that, I must add that this is an opportunity to put in context the tributes that should be, and indeed have been, paid not just to Margaret Thatcher but to Alan Walters and all who took part in the Maastricht rebellion, and also to those who have fought so tenaciously throughout the accretion of these treaties, from the early days until the present time. I use that collective term because many new Members who are in the Chamber now—notably my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for St Albans (Mrs Main), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—are apprised of the seriousness of the situation, as indeed we were at that time.
	Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 was passed 20 years ago as a result of a very tense debate about these questions. In the last 20 months, there have been at least 20 economic summits in an attempt to unravel the dysfunctional nature of the economic requirements with which we are having to comply, in the context of the convergence criteria and
	as set out in papers that have been placed before the House. I imagine that many Members have not had an opportunity to read those papers, but they have been placed in the Vote Office for the benefit of those who wish to do so.
	While we are dealing with the consequences of the Maastricht treaty, I want to take the opportunity to put on record a correction to a book by the former Chief Whip in the House of Commons, Lord Renton. After making some fairly disobliging remarks about certain Members—I need not ignore the fact that I was one of those of whom he did not particularly approve—he wrote that
	“the vehicle for their resistance was the parliamentary approval for the Treaty of Maastricht.”
	He went on to observe, astonishingly,
	“Although this had been signed by their heroine, Margaret Thatcher, they revelled in defying three-line whips in order to vote against its enactment into British law”.
	That is complete and total arrant nonsense. Margaret Thatcher did not sign the Maastricht treaty, although she certainly became a patron of the Maastricht referendum campaign, which I organised along with Bryan Gould and a Liberal Democrat Member who represents one of the Devon seats. However, the present Prime Minister himself has now said that there should have been a referendum on that treaty, and I believe that, had there been one, we would have won. The father of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was one of the leading campaigners in the House of Lords for the referral of the treaty to a referendum, but his campaign was defeated by a monstrous whipping operation, with the result that we are where we are.
	There was a complete refusal to listen to what was said at the time, and there has been a complete refusal to listen to what has been said ever since. I fear that the coalition is still not listening, although it is now clear as crystal that our predictions were right and that riots, massive unemployment, the rise of the far right and the failure of the system are destroying not only the European economy but Britain’s prospects for growth. I shall say more about growth in a moment, because it is fundamental to the issue that we are discussing.

Mark Reckless: As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister now says that there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Does he recall that the Prime Minister was at the time a special adviser to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Margaret Thatcher and who refused to sign the treaty? A junior Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), had to go and do it instead.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. That really is not part of the subject of the debate. We are not having a history lesson on how we came to approve section 5, or on the players in that event; we are considering the documentation that the Government have asked us to approve this evening in connection with section 5, and I should be grateful if all Members would remain in order. I feel sure that Mr Cash is going to come to the point now, in the context of that documentation.

William Cash: The hon. Member for Stone—who is also Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—will of course do just that. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for drawing my attention to these interesting documents. Among the interesting statements in the documents is this in paragraph 2.17:
	“The euro area is the key market for UK exporters, accounting for 42 per cent of UK exports in 2011. As a consequence, the euro area sovereign debt crisis and subsequent recession have weighed heavily on the UK recovery. Action by European policy makers in 2012”—
	I must say that I am astonished by the phrase that follows—
	“helped ease the crisis and there are signs of investor confidence improving, but as the situation in Cyprus demonstrates the challenges facing the euro area are not fully resolved.”
	Well, we can tell that to the people of Cyprus, but we can also say it to the people of Britain. This is not just a eurozone problem; it is a European Union problem, but above all else it is a British problem, and that is why we must take the necessary action.
	The document is completely wrong to describe the euro area as “the key market”. In fact, as I pointed out in a paper that I wrote with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the UK runs a trade deficit with the other 26 member states of £47 billion a year, yet we have a surplus of about £20 billion in our trade with the rest of the world. Furthermore, the Germans—about whom I shall say more in a moment, because of what was said by Angela Merkel at 3 pm today—run a surplus of no less than £29 billion a year with the other 26 member states.
	That is why the debate is so important.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On paragraph 2.17, does my hon. Friend share my view that it is a mistake to look at the euro area as one export market, as the individual countries that make up the eurozone have their own characteristics, and we naturally have a huge trade with Ireland, as all countries do with their nearest nation, irrespective of which currency bloc they belong to?

William Cash: Absolutely, and one of the greatest pleasures I have had in the past couple of years has been to have my hon. Friend serving on the European Scrutiny Committee, with the diligence, knowledge and judgment he brings to all these matters.
	It is also stated, at paragraph 2.19, that
	“Brazil, Russia, India and China taken together were the destination for 6.5 per cent of UK exports in 2011.”
	The real problem here is that our exports certainly have to go to the BRIC countries and also to the rest of the Commonwealth, which is where the emerging markets are, as well as to the United States.
	I strongly recommend that this House of Commons and this Government start waking up a bit. I really mean that, as I am very concerned indeed, as any right-minded person in this country should be.
	It is also argued in this paper that:
	“Between 2009 and 2012 UK goods exports to Brazil increased by 49 per cent, to Russia by 133 pre cent, to India by 59 per cent and to China by 96 per cent.”
	I have heard those figures before, but I asked what our actual import penetration into China was in relation to that of the rest of the world. It is 2%. The 96% increase
	is entirely relative, therefore. The real question is how much we are managing to export into China. Germany exports into China 45% of all the EU exports into China. I do not cite that figure in order to denigrate the expert efficiency, determination and political will of those who run Germany, but I do say that we had better get our act together. Continuing to be locked into these absolutely penalising treaties is causing us enormous damage, when we could gain so much by trading not only with Europe, but with the rest of the world on a much more enhanced basis.
	There is far too much discussion and not enough action, and I was glad to note the campaign launched today by 500 businessmen and run by Matthew Elliott, and I also commend the book about the euro by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which puts its finger on many of the problems in the euro area.

Richard Fuller: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that this report has given us an opportunity to put an alternative argument against the strong argument about commonality? I know he will draw the House’s attention to the interesting comments about Europe by the Chancellor of Germany today. My hon. Friend talks about those other economies, and there is an argument against commonality and for the UK having an opportunity to be able to trade with the rest of the world, but that is being lost as a result of such statements. Is there an opportunity for us to make this case, because I am not sure we are making it strongly enough?

William Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must be realists. T. S. Eliot once said,
	“human kind
	Cannot bear very much reality”,
	but Britain has got to wake up. It is crucial at this stage that we understand—in a constructive, not a negative, sense—that we have both a problem and an opportunity, but that opportunity will not last much longer, and we must not simply repeat the recitations and mantras about section 5 while not tackling the intrinsic problems.
	These papers were, no doubt, prepared by worthy civil servants, but they may well not reflect the real situation. Let us look at the question of the level of debt, for instance. I mentioned that in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and I gave him the percentage figures. However, under the previous Government—I now turn my attention to those on the Opposition Benches—I repeatedly said, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and one or two other Members, that the debt that was accumulating under them was causing so much damage to our economy. Furthermore, as I said at the time of the last election in my manifesto—or, rather, in my personal message to my constituents—the stated debt levels, which is the key issue, were based on what could only be described as a lie.

Christopher Leslie: What does the hon. Gentleman think about the fact that the national debt has risen by 38%—by over a third—in the past three years, while the current Front-Bench team has been in charge?

William Cash: Not only am I appalled by that, but I also recognise that the genesis of much of this can be traced back to the time of the previous Government. Furthermore,
	we now understand from the official figures published by the UK Statistics Authority that the level of debt—which at one time was, astonishingly, described as being “merely” £1 trillion—will go up to £1.5 trillion. However, under the previous Government the real level of debt—taking into account public pensions, Network Rail, nuclear decommissioning and several other factors, which we cannot ignore—was actually up at about £3.25 trillion, as I argued at the time, and if we include those factors it is now likely to be about £4 trillion.
	That is the inheritance of the young people of this country. They have got to be brought into work as a result of growth, but the prescription from the Opposition Benches is more debt, not less, and more Europe, not less.
	Regardless of how I vote this evening, I pay tribute to the fact that at least the coalition Government have begun to look at these questions. My complaint is that they have not done enough and they are going too slowly. If they do not get on with it, there will be a catastrophe. In fact, we are already living through the beginnings of a catastrophe.
	There is another question to be asked about growth. We can only grow our economy by growing from the other countries with whom we trade. In a nutshell, we must engage in cuts, but we need the taxation from the growth of small and medium-sized businesses in order to provide the public services those on the Opposition Benches say we need to provide. All they do is call for ever more cuts, but they talk about growth but do not actually do anything about it.
	The European approach of large, and greater, Government spending tends both to increase the rate of Government debt and to lower the GDP growth rate. As a result, growth in most European countries, and the possibility of getting Government debt under control, recedes. The rigidities imposed by a single currency—the euro—and the burden of EU regulation on EU economies are continuing to cause frictions and difficulties and will destroy the countries in the European monetary union.
	If only people would listen at the time, when it matters, rather than afterwards and then try to cover things up. Only a few weeks ago, Moody’s downgraded our economic performance, and Fitch did so in the last couple of days. Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France and Italy are now all countries of perpetual economic concern. There is a black hole, but the call is for more and more Europe.
	I referred to the remarks of Angela Merkel today. It is regrettable and unfortunate that she was quoted as saying that countries in the eurozone must accept that Europe “has the last word,” and need to work more closely together if the continent is to avoid going into decline. I am sorry to have to say this so specifically, but that is precisely because there is a centralised approach, which is driven by German requirements and goes back to Chancellor Kohl.
	In the 1990s, I wrote a pamphlet called “British and German National Interest”, and we are seeing a repetition of that time. Chancellor Merkel said:
	“We need to be prepared to break with the past in order to leap forward. I’m ready to do this.”
	In fact, she is going back to the past—not the dark past we all witnessed so vividly, but the kind of past that
	assumes it is not actually a European Union, but in practice, a German Europe. We should ask people in Cyprus and Greece what the position is. She said:
	“Germany will only act together with the others—hegemony is totally foreign to me.”
	It may be foreign to what she wants, but the practical reality is that it is happening.
	We are now being lectured by Madame Lagarde, who was a French economic Minister and is now head of the International Monetary Fund. She said:
	“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone.”
	Those are the rules we are discussing. On top of the theft in Cyprus, everyone knows that those of us who argued the case have been proved right.
	I am sorry to hear that Madame Lagarde appears to have criticised our Chancellor. It is some gratitude for all the work he did urging her to accept the presidency of the IMF, and leading the charge to make sure she got it.
	Everyone wrings their hands, but what are the Government doing? We are being locked into the question of whether the debt is being sufficiently reduced, but the debt is escalating and the deficit remains unacceptably high. Problems in the eurozone have a real effect on the UK economy. I repeat that it is not just about the eurozone, or just about the European Union; it is about Britain, which is why we have to get our act together. I notice that the Chief Whip has just come into the Chamber, so I hope he will listen with care, because these debates will unravel.
	Real GDP fell in every quarter of 2012 in the eurozone, and by 0.6% over the year as a whole. The IMF forecasts a further fall of 0.3% this year. What is happening is completely unacceptable. No wonder the UK Independence party is making such headway; it will continue to do so until there is real growth.
	We have the opportunity. We can deliver. No doubt the commentariat will fail to report this debate, as it fails to report other debates when we deal with facts and not mere speculation, but that will not prevent us from continuing the fight. We have the means to achieve the results. Some of them will come from a change of position by the Government, going for more and more growth based on real policies for growth and disentangling ourselves from the shackles of the regulatory arrangements of the European Union, making sure that the EU does not dominate the free trade agreements that are being determined. We have to be able to trade on our own terms, just as we in this Westminster Parliament have to decide the future of British policy.
	As the Prime Minister said in his five Bloomberg principles, our national democracy depends on our national Parliaments. European democracy depends on their national Parliaments. He was right about that. Let us do something about it. Let us make sure that we run our own economy based on our own assessment and that we do not remain shackled to the existing treaties. It is time to put an end to them.

Kelvin Hopkins: I rise to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) about the nonsense of
	presenting the fiction of the Red Book as though it represented the truth about our country. Another organisation—perhaps the Institute for Fiscal Studies—would do a better job.
	Last week, in a speech in the Chamber, I reminded colleagues of an organisation that used to get forecasts right: the Cambridge Economic Policy group. But it was a left-leaning Keynesian group and the Conservative Government of the time withdrew its funding, because they did not like its answers and chose to follow the London Business School, which always got the forecasts wrong. TheSunday Times always gave it nought out of 10. Let us not pretend that all forecasts speak the truth. Officials will never present the Chancellor with a gloomy picture; they try to put as big a gloss on things as possible so that the Chancellor can say nice things to us in the Budget speech.
	I only wish that the colour of the Red Book represented some of the policies inside, but I am afraid it does not. The antiquated language is nonsense. The Minister drew our attention to the fact that the reference to convergence was born of the past assumption that all countries would be in a single currency, we would all be growing nicely together, and poorer countries would become rich countries. That has all been washed away; it is all complete nonsense. It seems the only convergence we seek now is with an area that might be in terminal decline—the European Union. It is in serious economic difficulty, so do we want to converge with it? I suggest we want to diverge from it and make our economy work.
	Although there are areas where we would have definite disagreements, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) often says things I agree with. He said we were talking about a German European Union. In 1989, the Institute for Public Policy Research published a document called “The German Surplus,” which was quickly suppressed because it was too explosive. The whole political establishment was moving towards a pro-euro, “Let’s join the single currency and the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong time” approach. I still have a copy of the document and I think it can still be found on the internet. It said that Germany had built an economy around itself, such that it could sustain low parity for its currency against all the others. Building that low parity for their currency into the euro meant that the Germans would always have a competitive edge over the other countries and could export to them freely. What they did not appreciate was that over time those countries would run out of money and Germany would have to lend them money to buy German products, which is what has been happening. Germany either has to dissolve the whole arrangement or carry on giving vast sums of money to other members of the eurozone to help them buy German goods.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman may find it interesting to read the book by the Institute of Economic Affairs on that very subject.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall certainly look it up.
	Ministers go on and on about the importance of exports to the rest of the European Union—our Ministers did too—but they rarely talk about imports. We have a gigantic trade deficit, which is getting worse and worse
	every year. Even between January and February, the goods deficit with the EU rose from £4.8 billion to £5.1 billion. It now looks as though the trade deficit this year may be £60 billion. That is enormous; it is more than £1 billion a week. We are buying £1 billion more goods from the EU every week than the EU buys from us. That is not a sensible way to run an economy.

David Nuttall: Does that statistic not put the lie to all the people who claim that 3 million jobs would be lost if we left the EU?

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. If we just maintained balance, we would gain a million jobs overnight. If we go back to the Bretton Woods arrangements following 1944, Keynes was concerned about trade imbalances and he wanted arrangements to be put in place across the world that would avoid big deficits and big surpluses. Also, he wanted to require those with big surpluses to appreciate their currencies, as Germany should have done a long time ago. We are just going through the motions of arrangements made years ago which no longer have any serious meaning.
	Germany is now in trouble. It has faced a savage reduction of 17% in car production in the space of one month. It is in difficulty and will have to look to itself to solve that problem. George Soros has suggested that one of the ways out of all the present problems is for Germany to leave the euro and to recreate the deutschmark, which would naturally appreciate. All the countries now tied into the euro would then have difficulty. Denmark, for example, would want to devalue straight afterwards. Others are now talking about what George Soros said. There are people in Germany who want to leave the euro.
	There was an extremely interesting article in The Guardian this morning, suggesting that the only way out of this is for all the countries of the European Union to recreate their own currencies and to find appropriate parities for those currencies. If a country has its own currency, it can borrow and it can print money. It may be forced into a devaluation but it manages its own economy nationally and it can adjust the shock absorbers of separate currency, which are vital. The example used is Japan, which has had serious problems but is managing its economy internally.
	I draw Members’ attention to the one country that has come out of the current crisis rather better than all the others—that is, America. It is surprising, but American growth is at 2%, whereas ours is well below 1%. Although America still has serious difficulties and serious unemployment, it is doing better than Europe because it is pursuing growth policies, which necessarily mean more borrowing.
	I know that hon. Members on the Government Benches are horrified at the thought of more borrowing, but I urge them to read the great book by John Kenneth Galbraith, “The World Economy since the Wars”, where he pointed out that during wars—classically, the second world war—America borrowed vast sums from its own citizens. They finished up with lots of war bonds which they cashed in, and the American economy started off as the strongest economy in the world, stronger than it has ever been because of the massive investment in manufacturing that took place during the war. Its debt was based on borrowing, which was paid back over time, as the American economy grew, with full employment.
	I could go on, but I will not. Debating the motion every year is a nonsense. We ought to be looking at more sensible ways of running our economies.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I begin by saying how pleased I am that this debate has come to the Floor of the House and commend my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for bringing it here? He was unduly modest to send it upstairs to Committee because this gives us an opportunity to highlight the Government’s achievement and send it to Brussels with a panache that says, “We know what we are doing and we are pleased to educate you.” Unlike the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who I think has been confused in his economics this evening, the document shows how well we are doing, compared to our continental colleagues.
	Before I adumbrate our great achievements and the success of this Government since 2010 as set out in the document before us, there is one little matter that I wish to raise about the surveillance mission that the European Union is entitled under a 2011 agreement to send into a country that is not meeting the convergence criteria. Although it cannot punish us for failing to meet the convergence criteria, the European Union can, I believe, send in a surveillance mission or even a rather ominous-sounding enhanced surveillance mission.
	I hope the Government will be clear, and I thought from what my right hon. Friend the Minister was saying that the Government are being clear, that they will not accept such surveillance and will use all their abilities to discourage the European Commission from sending any surveillance mission. It would be a great audacity—a great cheek—if it were to do so when 19 member states are in special measures for their economic failings for the excessive deficit procedure. We, of course, are in it too because of our deficit, but those 19 other members are in the eurozone, which is why bringing their budgets together is so important, whereas for us it is essentially a technicality from the Maastricht treaty.
	It is a matter of importance that the Government have got the policy right. The key to getting it right is found on page 31 of the documentation and then on page 15. Page 31 deals with the quality of the public finances. It deals with what the Government are doing to consolidate our situation and the projection. Projections should be treated with the greatest suspicion. All forecasts are wrong, and it is merely a question of how wrong they will turn out to be. None the less—

Stephen Pound: Is that a forecast?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That was a wonderful interjection, as always, from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). I fear not. It is a statement based on a knowledge of history that forecasts invariably turn out to be inaccurate and it is merely a question of how inaccurate they turn out to be.
	But if we look at what the Government are trying to do, they are getting spending down from 47.4% of GDP to about 40% of GDP. We know from our history that about 40% of GDP is a sustainable level of Government spending. It is a level that I personally would like to see reduced further, but it is none the less a level that has
	been consistently affordable over the long run, certainly going back to the early 1970s, based on taxation revenues going up to 38.3% of GDP. Now, 38.3% of GDP for tax revenues is very near the peak level that has ever been achieved. It is rare for tax revenues to go above 38% of GDP or to remain there for a sustained period.
	So what is being done with the public finances is an extraordinarily effective consolidation on both sides, with taxes being pushed up and expenditure being cut, with most of the burden being taken by expenditure cutting and with a small amount of it on tax raising. That is setting the basis for a long-term recovery of the economy. Where I think the hon. Member for Nottingham East was perhaps unduly party political in what he said—uncharacteristically so, because he is normally a man of such consensus, support for the middle way and so on—was in ignoring the benefits of monetary activism.
	I refer right hon. and hon. Members to page 15. The key difference between the UK economy and the continental economies is that we have the ability to change our monetary policy to ease the austerity—[Interruption.] Indeed, printing money. Absolutely right. It is the printing of money that is allowing the deficit to be sustainable and is allowing businesses and individuals to carry on borrowing and work through a consolidation of their finances, which is also in the document—the consolidation of individual finances—to take place in a way that is not crippling. On the continent that is not happening, which is shown up in the gilt yield figures. The latest gilt yield figure is 1.65%. That is the lowest in our history. In Italy it is at 4.05% and in Spain just under 4.5%, which shows the much tighter monetary situation in Spain and Italy as compared with the United Kingdom. That is why the austerity programmes in those countries are causing such extraordinary pain, whereas in this country it is manageable.
	That is why I say the document is a model for our friends and neighbours across the channel. We ought to send it to them with a fanfare, with trumpeters, with Garter King of Arms leading the way, to say to them, “Look, this is how you do it. This is how you restore a country to fiscal sense, and you do it through monetary easing.” Although I loathe the fact that we have to report to a multinational body about matters that are our own sovereign right and should not be interfered with from abroad, on this occasion we can take real pride in what the Government are achieving and what they are working towards and the manner in which they are doing it.

David Nuttall: It is, as always, a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), if, as always, somewhat of a challenge to match his oratory. If, as will no doubt be the case after tonight’s proceedings, the Government eventually send this tome to the bureaucrats in Brussels, it would be sensible and appropriate for them to append to it a copy of my hon. Friend’s speech, which succinctly set out the Government’s achievements in managing so sensibly the British economy since they took office in 2010.
	This evening, in the few minutes that remain for the debate, I want briefly to set out why I oppose, as so many have, this annual charade of going through the
	process of submitting a document entitled “Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom”. As always, the question is: what on earth are we converging with? Why would this country want to converge in any way, shape or form with the other countries of the European Union, when our growth, as judged by the EU’s own statistical body, EUROSTAT, is forecast to be 0.9%, the EU average to be 0.1% and the eurozone to be minus 0.3%? It is forecast not to grow at all. Why on earth would we want to try to converge with it? What is the point of submitting this convergence report every year?
	I do wonder whether we ever get any feedback. Every year, the eurozone stumbles from crisis to crisis. It does not appear to take any notice of this document in which, since 2010 when the Government took over the nation’s finances, we have set out for the benefit of our European partners the way in which we manage our affairs in this country. We may have our political differences in this Chamber as to the right way forward for our economy, but those arguments are solely for this Chamber and for the other place, for this Parliament, to determine. We should in no way be beholden to the Brussels bureaucrats when it comes to British finances.
	The Minister referred to the convergence programme document, saying that no time was spent in producing it. Nevertheless, there is a document. Someone has spent some time putting together this weighty tome, which this year runs to some 235 pages. It is a bespoke document, submitted in accordance with the European treaties. This evening, time does not permit us to go through the long process as to how we got to the state that we are in today, but the question remains as to why we go through this annual charade. Surely it would be much better if, as I have said in previous years, we simply said to the bureaucrats in Brussels, “Look, if you are that interested in finding out what we in the UK are doing, just log on to the internet and have a look at all the documents on the Treasury’s website. You will see the Budget statement and the Red Book. That is what we are doing, and if you want to comment on it, go ahead and do so. But why on earth should we waste our time and money in submitting this convergence document to you?
	What really matters is not what the Brussels bureaucrats think, but what the British people think. At the next general election, the British people will have a crucial choice to make. Should they vote for the party that has led this country through the most difficult of times and put it back on the road to recovery, taking very difficult decisions that may well have adversely affected them? They will know in their heart of hearts that the decisions were right; they were right for the British economy and ultimately they will be right for them and their families. Should they vote for the party that has put us on the road to recovery or for the party that got us into this mess in the first place? That is the crucial decision that really matters at the next election. It doe not matter what the Brussels bureaucrats think about the running of the British economy.
	I oppose the motion not because I oppose the Government’s economic programme, but because I oppose the idea that we should in any way be beholden to Brussels. We should not be spending our time submitting this document or any others for its consideration.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 264, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

Business without Debate

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Implementation of the Common Commercial Policy

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11762/11, a draft Regulation amending certain Regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures; supports the Government’s view that power is delegated to the Commission in a way which ensures an appropriate balance remains between
	the roles of the EU institutions; and further supports the Government’s aim to ensure that urgency provisions are justified and that delegated powers are granted for fixed periods.—
	(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy

That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Amendment of Part 18) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That at the sittings on Tuesday 23 and Wednesday 24 April paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	I shall not detain the House for long. I simply want to draw attention to the fact that, as I announced at last Thursday’s business questions, tomorrow and Wednesday will be Opposition unallotted half days. The debates are guaranteed to last three hours and will be treated as Opposition days, notwithstanding what might happen with regard to the consideration of Lords amendments.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Business of the House

Ordered,
	That at the sittings on Tuesday 23, Wednesday 24 and Thursday 25 April—
	(1) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put, and may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business;
	(2) The Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords have been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons has reported.—(Mr Lansley.)

FIXED-ODDS BETTING TERMINALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Tom Greatrex: I am pleased to have secured this debate. I know from the number of letters, e-mails and, indeed, tweets I have received in the past few days that there is concern about the prevalence of fixed-odds betting terminals—or FOBTs, as they are commonly known—primarily in high street betting shops. A number of hon. and right hon. Members, some of whom are present, have also expressed concerns. Given that we have more time available than anticipated they will be able to make contributions, or if they want to intervene I will seek to accommodate them.
	I will begin by clarifying my own position on gambling. Participants in debates such as this are often portrayed as being either pro or anti-gambling. I am not anti-gambling, nor do I seek to persuade the Minister of State to prevent people from being able to gamble in betting shops if they so choose. There are 32 such shops in my constituency—they exist across the whole country—and I received a briefing earlier today that informed me that they employ 152 people. Many people gamble for entertainment and in their own time—some occasionally, some regularly—on sport, in the casino, at bingo and in other forms, and they do so without any problems. Indeed, most years I place a bet on Fulham winning the FA cup. That one has not come in yet, and my annual visit to the bookmakers seems to be as much for their amusement as for mine. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), a fellow Fulham supporter, reminds me that in 1975 we came quite close. I was about eight months old at the time, so I do not really remember it, but I am sure that he had a bet that day.
	The serious point is that my inclination and that of many Members of this House is to be very cautious about regulating how people choose legally to spend their money. That should be a matter for them and in most cases it is. There is also a danger in seeking to extrapolate policy from the worst cases of problem gambling. That does not mean, however, that the Government should simply ignore the issues and concerns that arise from the fact that between 2007 and last year, the number of FOBTs on high streets throughout Britain near enough doubled from 16,380 to some 32,000.
	My interest in this issue began late in 2011, when I was approached by a constituent who in one month had gambled more than £25,000 on a single machine in a betting shop in my constituency. He approached me not because he had accepted that he had a gambling problem caused by the use of the roulette game that he played, but because he was convinced that that game was rigged. At that point, he had not thought that he had a problem. I am pleased to say that he has now accepted that he has a problem and is involved in a number of groups to deal with it. A feeling that the game is rigged is often the first indication that somebody has a problem that is getting out of control.
	When my constituent approached me, I was astonished that somebody who was not a bored millionaire professional footballer betting on the horses or a property tycoon at
	the casino could lose that amount of money in such a short space of time at the local betting shop during the day on a single machine. What I had not appreciated is that we are not talking about machines with a £1 or £2 spin like the fruit machines in a pub, on a ferry or in a chip shop. B2 machines, as they are known, are casino-content terminals with high stakes, fast play and randomly generated results. The maximum stake is £100 per spin. It is possible, therefore, to stake £300 in a minute. In the extreme, that means that it is possible to stake up to £18,000 in an hour.

Ian Lavery: The anti-gambling lobby says consistently that gamblers can lose up to £18,000 per hour on these machines. Will my hon. Friend comment on the likelihood of that?

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. Even if somebody played at the maximum speed for an hour, it would be highly unlikely that they would lose every single time. I suspect that the odds of losing £18,000 in an hour are pretty long. However, this is not just an idle way to use up some spare change, with the anticipation of winning a few pounds. Many people who use these machines lose a significant amount of money in a relatively short period.
	I am sure that many Members have received cards via betting shops from the “Back your local bookie” campaign, which has made points about the economic value that bookmakers contribute. Betting shops often invite Members to go along and have a go on one of these machines. They will put it in demo mode and one can press a button and see that it is all very straightforward and fine. However, I have chosen to be an unannounced visitor to betting shops in London and in my constituency. What I have seen is quite alarming. People sit on the machines for a prolonged period, playing continuously and obviously staking significant amounts of money. Other than on weekends such as the grand national weekend or the Scottish grand national weekend, there is next to nobody betting over the counter. Many shops are staffed by a single individual. Other than overseeing the premises, it appears that there is relatively little for that individual to do. The machines do the work, take a lot of the money and, as the published figures demonstrate, deliver half the profit of high street betting shop chains.
	I also recently spent a morning with the Hamilton Gamblers Anonymous group, who by definition are people with a gambling problem. I would not seek to suggest that everybody who gambles from time to time, or even a significant proportion of them, develop a problem, but from meeting that group, it struck me that there was a clear divide between the younger and older members. Many of the older members had developed a problem associated with gambling on horses or sometimes dog racing, or in casinos or on cards. All the younger members of the group had bet significant amounts of money on betting shop machines. Either that had been their way into gambling, from which they had developed a problem, or they had moved on to it from other forms of gambling in betting shops. I am sure that we have all heard stories about the impact on homes, families and children, with relationships breaking down because of a compulsive habit that people can indulge every day from 8 o’clock in the morning in the betting shop around the corner.

Ian Lavery: Is there not a bigger problem for individuals who have problems with gambling, in that they can sit at home gambling online 24 hours a day, often with bigger stakes than £100 every time? I wonder why the anti-gambling lobby and a lot of people do not focus on that potential problem rather than on what is happening in betting shops.

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I would not describe myself as anti-gambling. Some industry representatives seem to take quite an arrogant and dismissive attitude to concerns that are expressed, but I would not call myself anti-gambling. He is right that people can gamble significant amounts on the internet in their own homes, but we cannot take comfort from the fact that significant amounts can be gambled on machines on the high street in a short period.

David Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that at least a betting office pays taxation and can deal with problems and give advice in-house, whereas gambling on computers is a whole new direction, with a lot of young people involved? No money comes back to the country, because it all goes offshore. Surely the betting offices’ argument is that they are having to do this because of the offshore betting that takes place elsewhere.

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about where the profits of a lot of internet gambling go, but I would have more sympathy with his argument about high street betting shops if I could be more confident about the supposed self-regulation for people who have a problem. People have to sign themselves in and suggest that they have a problem, which misses out many people who have not yet accepted that they have a problem. That is related to a point that I will make later about the clustering of betting shops in particular parts of high streets, which suggests that the idea is to maximise the number of machines in close proximity so that people go from one to another. It is hard for betting shops and the big chains to deal with problem gambling as they encounter it when so much activity is automated; it is much harder than in the case of traditional, over-the-counter gambling.

Tracey Crouch: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an issue that is incredibly important in the Medway towns and Chatham, where we have seen a proliferation of bookmakers on the high street.
	It is wrong that people who raise concerns about fixed-odds betting terminals are considered part of the anti-gambling lobby. Surely it is our duty and responsibility as constituency MPs to look after the most vulnerable people in our constituencies, some of whom are drawn into gambling addiction because of the number of FOBTs in each betting shop.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the hon. Lady, who makes her point well. It is easy to dismiss concerns as coming from people who are anti-gambling or who want to abolish it. I understand that that is not her position, and it is certainly not mine. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there has been clustering of an increasing number of betting shops in certain communities. I have
	evidence of that in my constituency, and there is a danger of people being drawn in. That is why I think it is the Government’s responsibility to monitor the situation closely. As the hon. Lady said, the impact on some people should be of concern to any individual constituency MP.

Robert Flello: I am taking great notice of what my hon. Friend is saying as it is important not to characterise this debate as being either for or against gambling; it is not as simple or straightforward as that. May I put the record straight and say that not all online gambling is offshore? Indeed, the excellent bet365 in the adjacent constituency to mine is most determinedly remaining onshore in the face of competition—

Stephen Pound: Hasn’t it sponsored Stoke?

Robert Flello: Indeed, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, the chairman of Stoke City is also the chairman of bet365. As well as putting that important point on the record, may I stress that other aspects in life are regulated, such as drinking? We are not for or against drinking just because we raise a concern about alcohol, but we are rightly expressing a point. It is important that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has initiated this debate, and I look forward to listening to more of his speech.

Tom Greatrex: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to make that point about bet365 and the chairman of Stoke City, although I am not sure what odds he would have put on Stoke winning at the weekend and seemingly escaping relegation for another year, and near enough relegating Queens Park Rangers in the process, which I am not necessarily hugely unhappy about—I digress, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	My hon. Friend is right to make a point about how this issue is sometimes characterised and how things are regulated. As I said earlier, my inclination is that we should not try to over-regulate individual behaviour. Where harm is caused, however, the Government need to take the issue seriously. The right level of regulation is always a balance that the Government need to strike on the basis of evidence, and I will come on to that. That, however, is a different position from a blanket opposition to gambling, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening and allowing me to reiterate that point.
	I was referring to the younger members of the Gamblers Anonymous group whom I met, and my concern has developed from those individual accounts. In recent weeks I have met those campaigning against a proliferation of these machines—people from a range of different organisations, both locally and nationally, who are concerned about their potential impact—as well as representatives from high street bookmakers. I have spoken to my own local authority, South Lanarkshire council, and received briefings from a range of organisations, including the Association of British Bookmakers. I believe the Government should be concerned about some of the issues that arose from those discussions.
	As the Minister will be aware, and as I said earlier, it takes 20 seconds to complete a spin, and for each spin the maximum stake is £100.

Andy Slaughter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has already made this point but I think it deserves repeating. The £100 spin—50 times the normal limit—is an anomaly that allows people, very easily and conveniently, to walk off the high street and into a betting shop and gamble large sums of money. I popped into my local Ladbrokes last Friday evening to put an unwise bet on a dog at Romford—a tip given to me by the former Member for Hammersmith and Fulham—so I am not anti-gambling. The only four people in that betting shop were those playing on fixed-odds betting terminals. That is not what I expect a betting shop to be.

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I, too, would be reticent about taking too much advice from a former Member for Hammersmith and Fulham in relation to sport.

Stephen Pound: Particularly on the night of the Arsenal-Fulham game.

Tom Greatrex: Since the former Member for Hammersmith and Fulham is an Arsenal fan, that is right. The experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in visiting betting shops mirrors mine in terms of where people are and what they are doing. It is the same at different times of the day.
	On the limit, I am sure that the Minister will refer to the consultation, which recently closed. A range of organisations made submissions. The ABB briefing makes the case for the economic impact of changing the stake, but there is a social and economic impact in favour of such a change. I hope the Minister considers that carefully along with other representations. My hon. Friend was right to describe the stake as an anomaly. The machines are different from the fruit machines that we find in pubs, clubs and other places, and different from other gaming machines. I am not suggesting that everybody would stake that amount of money each time, but people can do so. They might have access to that amount of money for only a short period and it could be better used in other ways. If people have developed or are in the process of developing a problem, they might well stake that amount. I do not claim that every single machine user will bet £100 a go or £300 a minute. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), I suspect that people doing so would win as well as lose. Suggesting that someone could lose £18,000 in an hour is extreme—it is possible but highly unlikely.
	I am concerned both by what I have seen and by the research that I asked my member of staff to carry out ahead of the debate. It is very easy to gamble a lot of money very quickly. People almost do not realise the amount they are gambling and the speed with which they are doing it. The nature of the machines is that they encourage people both to chase their losses and to try to increase their wins. It is impossible to deny that people can play roulette on an FOBT in the bookies at four and half times the speed they can play roulette in
	a casino. The ability to get hooked, even for a short period, is apparent. That is the experience of those I have met who have gambled on FOBTs, partly because they are perceived by punters to be a good bet. Why would people not believe that? The machines tell people that there is a 97% payback, which is not that far from 100%. People therefore believe they have a good chance of winning. Why would they play a £70 jackpot machine in the pub when they can nip next door to the bookies and play for a £500 jackpot on a machine that they believe has 97% payout?
	However, people only believe that there is a 97% payback. I asked representatives of one of the large bookmakers how those figures were calculated. They told me that the 97% payback is not what an individual will win, and that it is unlikely that someone playing for 10 minutes or half an hour will win at that rate. The 97% is an average taken from the cash inputted into all machines against the return as a whole. That confusion could be addressed relatively easily. Will the Minister therefore press representatives of the gambling industry to use a more appropriate and straightforward figure? The Gambling Act 2005 states that gambling should be “fair and open”. Surely explaining the chances of winning in a much clearer way, and in a way that is much less likely to be misunderstood, is the least we can expect.
	Another aspect of the debate—this has been mentioned in interventions—is high streets. Those of us who live close to high streets and main streets throughout the UK have seen a number of betting shops opening in recent years. The most recent ABB briefing to MPs and its press release boast of the number of shops in the high street and their employment impact. A cluster of betting shops in one street or one part of a street has become a common sight. Sometimes, branches of the same firm are in very close proximity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has highlighted that previously. The Government’s review of the high street—the Portas review—drew attention to that point with a proposal for betting shops to be put in a distinct category. As I am sure many hon. Members are aware, betting shops are currently in the same bracket as banks and building societies, and there is no need to apply for change of use through the planning processes.
	Many retail businesses, including estate agents and coffee shops, cluster together, and retailers will always seek to locate where they believe there is a market—supermarkets are notoriously focused on, and efficient at, doing so—so why is there a problem with betting shops?
	The Minister is of course aware of the increase in the number of these machines in the past five years. As I have said, there are almost twice as many as there were just five years ago. I am sure he also knows that half the profits of high street bookmakers come from the machines and that there is a limit of four machines per betting shop. It is increasingly apparent that the opening of new betting shops is driven by the ability to have more machines. From the figures available, it is also apparent that clustering tends to occur in places with more social deprivation and lower overall incomes.
	I do not believe that the Government should seek to determine on a national level whether there is over-provision of businesses in a particular area, but it should be open to local authorities and licensing authorities to do so.
	The case being pursued by Newham council is indicative not just of a community that feels it has enough betting shops and machines already, but of a wider frustration that all too often local authorities feel there is very little they can do to address their concern. I do not expect the Minister to comment in detail on that case as it is in the process of going through the courts, but does he think that it should be possible for local councils and licensing boards to have the flexibility to determine whether there is a need for further betting shops in particular communities and how many machines should be available in each betting shop?
	The thrust of the campaign postcards we have been receiving in recent weeks is that machines make a contribution to the economy, keeping betting shops going and employing people in constituencies across the UK. The economic impact of betting shops is important, but it needs to be assessed in the context of the total impact on local economies. As the Minister may be aware, a recent study by Landman Economics found that the £1 billion in FOBT spend supports 7,000 jobs in the gambling sector, compared to 20,000 jobs if that expenditure were used elsewhere. Put another way, there could be 13,000 fewer jobs for every £1 billion spent through the machines. Money being used to gamble in local high streets may be good for the big chains and their overall profit margins, but the local impact can be less beneficial. More and more betting shops are employing fewer staff, as gambling through machines has less need for personal interaction.
	The gambling industry groups are robust and sometimes dismissive in their response to those concerns. Their perspective can be summarised thus: something being popular means that it does not cause problems; look at all the people employed in betting shops and the shops’ contribution to the local economy; and everybody knows exactly what they are doing because lots of them have A-levels. That type of attitude highlights precisely why the Government should keep the impact of the machines under review and not leave the industry to act under its own initiative.
	While the industry argues that there is no evidence to suggest that FOBTs are addictive, anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a problem. The confusion in the Government’s own statements is apparent. In the consultation document I referred to earlier, they say that the causal link “remains poorly understood”. However, they also say that the association between high stake, high price machines and gambling-related harm is widely accepted, which makes the decision to end the gambling prevalence study all the more concerning. Will the Minister respond, in particular, to the point that research is required to determine the evidence on the likelihood of problem gambling? I am conscious that the people I have spoken to in my constituency are those with problems and that there are many who do not have problems, but the level of concern suggests that much closer attention should be paid.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend seems to be concluding his remarks and I want to ask this question before he does so. On the impact of gambling addiction on communities, the cost to the Government of families where there is an addicted gambler spending money
	that should be spent on the children is huge. The cost to the nation of such addiction is massive. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be in the Government’s best interests to have the best possible analysis of the impact of machines on addiction rates, so that it could guide their policies and ultimately, perhaps, even save some money?

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we assess the cost to the public purse and the impact on communities. It is an argument often used in relation to other policy areas, such as early-years intervention and so on, that can save money. I hope therefore that the Minister will comment on the level of evidence required, and how wide-ranging it needs to be, in order to assess the scope of the problem and how it could best be addressed.
	There is some evidence on the proportion of gambling that is problem gambling. I think the Minister will be aware of the Birmingham university study based on analysis of the 2010 British gambling prevalence survey. It is a valuable piece of work that starts to consider some of these issues, but it needs to be constantly monitored and updated. In 2007, when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport commissioned a scoping study on the impact of the Gambling Act 2005, it recommended that FOBTs be closely monitored because they contained features closely associated with problem gambling. Will he explain what his Department has done, and will be doing, to monitor their impact?

David Hamilton: I am following this debate intensely. I am not a gambler, but constituents have indicated to me the problems specifically with these machines. Is my hon. Friend saying that we should revert to how things used to be and that these machines should not be in the bookies? If so, there would be fewer bookies, because, as he said, 40% of their profits come from the machines. But how would that address the computer issue, which I believe is a big problem? There is no regulation there at all. If we want to resolve the problem, we have to address the computer issue, as well as the machines. If we removed the machines, it would reduce profits by 40% and it might also prevent the clustering he is talking about.

Tom Greatrex: My hon. Friend makes a point about the number of betting shops. He will be aware of the relatively recent increase in the number of betting shops in certain areas, which I contend is due, at least in part, to the ability to have more machines. The benefit of that is to the betting shops and chains—they are nearly all chains, and in some cases there is more than one branch of the same chain, but there will certainly tend to be one of each in close proximity. An assessment of their economic impact and their benefit to the local community, including from the jobs they provide, must be set against the negative impact of the problem gambling associated with the machines.
	That does not take away from my hon. Friend’s point about internet gambling, which needs to be looked at again, but I think that collecting evidence on the extent of the problem and then giving more flexibility to local authorities and licensing authorities is a better way of establishing what is tolerable in particular areas. Otherwise, we get the clustering in particular areas where the problems tend to occur.

David Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, but I want to return to the main point. He started with the point that these new machines, which have been put in over time, are attracting people in off the streets and allowing them to make massive bets that they could not make before. If we took out the machines, or reverted to what is acceptable in clubs, pubs or other gambling establishments, where much less money can be spent, the logical outcome would be fewer betting shops. These are not betting shops as we know them, with betting on horse racing and football, if, as he says, people are going in to use the machines. If we eliminated the machines and reverted to what used to be the case, would we not reduce the number of betting shops?

Tom Greatrex: Certainly, most activity in betting shops takes place on the machines, rather than on over-the-counter betting, and that seems to have led to a change in the number of people being employed. Not in all chains, but certainly in some, there used always to be at least two people, with people betting at the counter, but now there is often only one person. So these machines might already have had an impact on jobs. We need to look at the issue carefully, because these machines have a significant impact. That is not good for any community, no matter how many betting shops there are there, nor does the number in a particular area necessarily justify a high prevalence of machines or the high stakes that can be gambled each time.
	Before I conclude—I am conscious that I have gone on much longer than would normally be allowed in such a debate—

David Hamilton: You have 55 minutes to go.

Tom Greatrex: I do not want to alarm other hon. Members, but I do not intend to speak for 55 minutes more, although the Minister may wish to do so.
	I want to ask the Minister a couple of further questions about the vital research that, as I have said, needs to be done. I am sure he will refer to the research into all category B machines commissioned by the Responsible Gambling Trust and the time scale for that research. Obviously, he will look at it once it is completed—I think it is due to take 18 months, which is a considerable time—but I wonder whether he is aware of the concerns that have been expressed that the chair of the Responsible Gambling Trust is also the chair of the Association of British Bookmakers, which is the trade association that represents the industry. What reassurances has the Minister sought to ensure that the research that the Responsible Gambling Trust is undertaking is credible and that there is not a conflict of interest in the way it is undertaken? Is he also aware that the vice-chair of the Association of British Bookmakers is on the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board’s machines expert panel or that a special partner in a company that owns an FOBT supplier is also a member of the board? If so, does the Minister believe that that undermines the credibility of the research? What reassurance can he give that it will not and that the research commissioned by the Responsible Gambling Trust will be comprehensive and robust?
	I make those points not because I wish to denigrate the reputation of any individual, but because the outcome of that research will be vital, as will be the research needed to understand the extent of the problem. This evening I have outlined anecdotal examples from my
	constituency, and I am sure many hon. Members present could do the same—indeed, some have done so in interventions on me. When the industry claims that there is no problem and no evidence to show that there is, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the research is done and the evidence provided, because despite all the claims that are made, we do not want more people to get into gambling problems much more quickly than they would otherwise as an unintended consequence of allowing new machines to be made available for people to gamble on.
	I hope the Minister will take the remarks I have made this evening as I hope they came across—that is, as those of a concerned constituency Member of Parliament, not someone who is anti-gambling, who has the intent to close down every bookmaker or who would suggest that people should not gamble. People can gamble if they wish—I do occasionally, as do others. There is nothing wrong with that: it is a legitimate entertainment and leisure pursuit for many people—sometimes occasionally, sometimes regularly, as I have outlined. However, if we get into a situation where very many people have serious problems as a result of being able to gamble large amounts of money in a short period on such machines, that is something that the Government should address, as I hope the Minister will.

Tracey Crouch: I rise briefly to offer some cross-party support for the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and the concerns he has raised. I am not anti-gambling; in fact, I like more than a regular flutter, normally on the horses, not the football—I have much better sense than that. However, I have concerns about the proliferation not just of betting shops, but of the number of FOBTs in them. I am not one often to engage in tribal politics and I certainly do not want to do so on this occasion, but that is clearly a consequence of the liberalisation of gambling that we saw under the previous Government.
	That said, it is incumbent on us as a responsible Government to try to reach a solution to the problem. I share the hon. Gentleman’s view about giving local authorities the opportunity to provide part of the solution. A cross-party working group on Medway council has recently produced a paper, to try to ensure that it can have a role to play in reducing the number of bookmakers on the high street. Bizarrely, Chatham high street is not in the Chatham and Aylesford constituency, but that is where the heart of some of these problems lies.
	I can see the benefits of having fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops, but I have concerns about the number of such machines in those shops and about the amount of money that can very quickly be staked, lost and won on them. That creates an incentive to people to go in and use the machines. I long for the day when I can go into my local bookies and queue up to place a bet on a horse, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, more people are playing on the machines than are filling out the card. In fact, I quite enjoy going into a bookies and shocking people when I place a bet on a horse. I do not think they expect a woman, let alone the local Member of Parliament, to walk into a bookies.
	I am particularly concerned about the Medway towns, in which people are experiencing increasing levels of personal debt. It is an area of deprivation, and there are
	problems relating to the clustering of bookmakers, payday loan companies and pawnbrokers. This is an issue for the whole area. I therefore want to offer my support for the hon. Gentleman. Like him, I do not think that we should eradicate the machines from betting shops, but I believe that we should look carefully at limiting them or limiting the stakes that people can place on them.

Hugh Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) for securing the debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss this issue. He correctly states that it is a matter of concern for many hon. Members. Let me reassure him that I do not in any way take what he said as an indication that he is either pro-gambling or anti-gambling. He made a well-balanced contribution that reflected concerns that I have heard when we have debated this issue and others associated with it. These concerns have been raised with me on many other occasions.
	The hon. Gentleman is a diligent Member who does his research, and he will be aware that he is catching me at a slightly awkward time, in that the triennial review into stakes and prizes has just closed, on 9 April. My Department has received more than 9,000 responses to the review, and we are in the process of analysing them. For reasons that he and any other Members with experience of dealing with the gambling industry will know, it is important, given that these are big, litigious organisations, for any Government to proceed on the basis of evidence. I hope, particularly in view of what he has said tonight, that he has submitted a response to the millennium review.

Rehman Chishti: The consultation started in January and finished in April, but will the Minister take account of any further new evidence? For example, BBC South East carried out an independent survey of betting and gambling problems and of fixed-odds betting terminals in Gillingham and the wider Medway area, but the survey was carried out after the consultation closed. Will he take that new evidence into consideration?

Hugh Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I will have to check the legalities and get back to him. The consultation period was open for a specific time, and if we were to reopen it to the BBC, we would have to reopen it to everyone else to be fair. I am slightly inclined to ask why, if the BBC was going to carry out a major study, it did not do so in time to submit it to the consultation, especially when it had three months in which to do it.
	We have heard many distressing tales of where people have run into problems using the type of machines that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West has spoken about this evening. Each one of those stories is, of course, a personal tragedy not just for the individual, but for their friends and colleagues—and indeed, for the wider society. As was pointed out earlier, however, we also have to balance such matters with a recognition that for the majority of people, gambling does not develop into a problem. As I think the hon.
	Gentleman was fair enough to say, the gambling industry is a legitimate part of the leisure industry that creates jobs and harnesses investment.
	According to the Gambling Commission’s industry statistics for the period April 2011 to March 2012, the gambling industry employed almost 110,000 people—a considerable number—with the betting sector making up the largest component, employing nearly 55,000 people in full or part-time posts. That makes the gambling industry a significant contributor to the UK economy. The Office for National Statistics estimated that in 2009 it was directly worth £4.9 billion in gross value added terms. What I think I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is not one thing or the other, but that there is a balance to be struck here. To be fair, he recognises that.
	Let me say a few words about betting shops. The hon. Gentleman mentioned what has been a recurrent theme during recent times, about which concerns have been raised by a large number of stakeholders: the clustering of betting shops within certain local areas. The key concern—it has been raised tonight—often relates to the B2 machines and their impact on local communities in respect of problem gambling.
	The overall number of betting shops has remained reasonably stable in recent years. In 2009, there were 8,862 and by September 2012 there were 9,049—not a huge difference. Those figures are well down on the peak of 16,000 during the 1960s. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however, that more betting shops are relocating to the high street, which makes them more visible.
	I am not entirely shrugging my shoulders when I say that planning policy is, of course, an issue for the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is relevant to the debate to note that local authorities have a range of enforcement powers—I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman would like them to have more—that can be used to manage the overall retail diversity and the viability of town centres. Tools such as article 4 directions allow local authorities to restrict nationally permitted development rights if they are not suitable for their area.

Ian Lavery: Anybody can see the clustering of betting shops on the high street. What is the Minister’s view of why that is happening, as he is right that there are fewer betting shops now than 20 years ago?

Hugh Robertson: That is a very good question. I have to tread a little carefully because of the consultation. As a Minister who has already been judicially reviewed once, over a football stadium, I am not in hurry to go through that joyous process again, to be honest, so I will tread reasonably carefully here. Many of the factors mentioned tonight may be behind this particular development. It is pretty clear where betting shops are making their money at the moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) mentioned, the pattern of betting has changed quite a lot over recent years. Betting shops are sometimes able to pay rents that other retail outlets cannot afford, there have been changes in shopping patterns and there is also the changing nature of the high street. All those things are factors, but I will not go a great deal further than that until we have had the chance to analyse the responses to the consultation.

Andy Slaughter: Let me try to push the Minister a little further. It is perhaps not so much the absolute numbers or even necessarily the clustering itself that is the issue, but where the clustering is taking place. In my relatively poor constituency, there are two or three times the number of betting shops as there are in neighbouring more prosperous constituencies. In Chelsea or Richmond, a third or half the number of betting shops will be found than in an area such as Shepherd’s Bush. That is the concern.

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman made his point very well. The rent that betting shops with machines of this kind are able to pay is crucial. Presumably, if they move to Chelsea the retail rents will rise, and that may price them out of the area. There is almost certainly a social element in all this, and I suspect that that is the answer that the hon. Gentleman hoped I would give him. We will consider all the evidence in the course of this review and the review that will be undertaken in due course by the Remote Gambling Association. I shall say more about that shortly.

Robert Flello: Is the Minister saying that the work that he and his civil servants are considering will include a mapping exercise to establish where betting shops are located in relation to, for instance, the index of deprivation?

Hugh Robertson: It is important to note that two separate reviews are taking place. The triennial review of stakes and prizes closed on 9 April, and produced 9,000 responses which we must work through. The wider issues will be addressed by the review that will take place next year, and I hope that we will be able to reach some worthwhile conclusions on that basis.
	The Gambling Commission’s statistics show that between March 2011 and April 2012, an average of just over 35,500 machines were capable of offering B2 category games in betting shops in Great Britain. The number has remained relatively stable since 2009, but, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, that stability has occurred at a time when machine numbers elsewhere have declined. For example, according to Gambling Commission figures, the overall number of gaming machines fell by 10% between 2011 and 2012, and the number of B2 machines increased by 1% during the same period. That would appear to show that B2 machines are popular consumer products, which may give rise to some of the problems identified by the hon. Gentleman. They are, of course, also crucial to the profitability of many betting shops.
	I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the light of concerns raised by him and others, it is appropriate for the Government to look into the issue. I assure him that I am well aware of the concerns that he and many other Members have expressed about B2 machines in particular. In dealing with the problem, for reasons that I have already given, I must proceed on the basis of evidence. I hope that the combination of the two reviews that I have mentioned will give us the evidential base that we need in order to work out exactly what is happening and what needs to be done as a consequence. We want to balance the harmful effects that he and many others have described with the contribution that gambling properly makes to employment and the local economy in many areas, which has been mentioned by Members on both sides of the House.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman both on securing the debate and on the way in which he has prosecuted his case. The evidence that he has presented illustrates the problem, and as he said, it is up to the Government to determine how best to tackle it. I can reassure him that the Government are listening—I am absolutely listening—and that we will take action if it is necessary. However, we must act on the basis of the evidence that is available to us.

Ian Lavery: I thank the Minister for giving way again. There is evidence that it is possible to spend £18,000 in an hour on FOBT machines. I agree with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) that the people whom we should be looking after are the most vulnerable in society. Like every other Member who is present tonight, I recognise that that is the case and that there is a problem with these machines. We need a fair and balanced review. We need people to be honest about this. People cannot lose £18,000 in an hour on one of those machines. They can go to Cheltenham and spend £100,000 in one minute on one bet; they can put £250,000 on a horse in one minute with one bet. We would not multiply that by 60 and say that is how much money people can spend at Cheltenham, and then look to prevent them from doing so. That is a ludicrous argument.

Hugh Robertson: I understand much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The challenge for us as a Government and me as a Minister is to work out a way to deal with the problem that has rightly been identified—the fact that some people get addicted through this sort of gambling—but to do so, if we can, in a way that does not discriminate against the many people who use those machines perfectly safely and perfectly reasonably, and not to overdo it in such a way as to harm the local economy and the employment prospects of many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It is a question of getting that balance right.

Graham Jones: The Minister talked about a solution that involves the Government, but has he had any conversations with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about licence fees and local authorities, because they have a role to play in this and they can represent their communities? If the licence fee cap by Whitehall were lifted and they were able to make their own local decisions on what the initial fee should be and what the annual fee should be after that, that might have an impact on the high street, with decisions being made by local government and therefore taken out of the hands of central Government. Has the Minister looked at those questions, and has he had any conversations with his colleagues in DCLG?

Hugh Robertson: The simple answer is that we are in constant contact with DCLG. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), used to speak on these matters for the Lib Dems and is now the Minister with responsibility for them. He is very much across the subject; he understands these points extremely well, and all of them will be looked at. Let me make the point again, however, that we have to follow the evidence, which is precisely why we are trying to put these two studies together.

David Hamilton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) on securing this debate, because I have learned one or two things tonight. I have constituents who have come to see me about some real problems. The comparisons that we must think about, however, go further than those he has made. We to take into account the fact that local pubs, clubs and bingo halls also have machines, but not machines of such an infectious nature, perhaps because they cannot afford the licence. The comparison that has to be made is this: are people more likely to go to the betting office to get a bigger gamble or go to the local pub or bingo hall where the sums they can put in are limited to 10p, 20p or £1, which is the highest stake?

Hugh Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is, indeed, in theory perfectly possible—although we will have to wait and see where the evidence from the consultation leads us—to deal with one set of machines in one way and another in another way, and we may want to do so to reflect the different reasons why people play.

Andy Slaughter: One piece of evidence the Minister may take into consideration is that the average spin on a B2 machine is about £15, which is seven or eight times the maximum on a B3 machine. That, rather than the
	possibility of spending £18,000 in an hour, is what concerns to me. This is an anomaly, because these are off-site betting opportunities, where the server is off-site, and suddenly people can gamble a much higher sum. I am sure the Minister is aware of that, although he may not be commenting on it tonight. That is a major difference with regard to the type of gambling that has just been talked about, which is available now just by walking off the street.

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point of which I am aware. I hope everybody who has spoken in the debate contributed to our consultation; if so, their responses will be lying there among the 9,000 that I am sure my civil servants are looking forward to wading through over the coming months.
	Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West on securing this debate; it proved a popular activity for an hour. I assure him that we are listening and that we will act on the available evidence, for all the reasons I set out tonight. We will also listen carefully to all the responses to our consultation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.